PDA

View Full Version : Greenspan states the obvious



truthmatters
09-16-2007, 09:21 AM
4

Hugh Lincoln
09-16-2007, 09:25 AM
The Jewish moneyman doth deceive. He has every reason to toss out this popular left-wing canard so as to divert attention from the incredibly obvious network of Jewish neocons who sought the war to secure Israel's safety.

truthmatters
09-16-2007, 09:32 AM
4

bullypulpit
09-16-2007, 09:59 AM
Greenspan goes on further to say,

<blockquote>" 'They (the GOP) swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose' in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate." - <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15greenspan.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print>NYT</a></blockquote>

The GOP abandoned its principles of fiscal conservatism and spent tax-payer money like a bunch of sailors on liberty in the Phillipines, at least when we still had a base there. And Bush never saw a GOP spending bill that he didn't like. Of course, Chimpy's dirty little war in Iraq didn't help matters any either. <a href=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15499.htm>The total costs of the war, at least to this point</a> are expected to exceed $2 trillion...Yes boys and girls, that's TRILLION.

And, of course, Chimpy, in order to finance the war has borrowed heavily from foreign nations in order to finance it. Never mind that some of those nations don't exactly have America's best interests at heart, which opens a whole can of worms with regard to national security. Of course the responsible thing to do would have been to eliminate Chimpy's tax cuts, and raise taxes to pay for the war, rather than foisting the burden onto future generations.

But that's what Chimpy McPresident is best at...Kicking the can down the road...passing the problem on for someone else to clean up. He's been doing it his whole life, only this time, Poppy can't quietly hush things up with a little cash to quiet the squeaky wheels and make records disappear. To many have witnessed and documented the trail of wreckage of the Bush administration has left in its wake. We'll be left trying to clean up this mess for decades, maybe even generations, to come, while Chimpy tries to skate off and wash his hands of it. But that much blood leaves an indelible stain.

Joe Steel
09-16-2007, 10:52 AM
More than likely, a variety of special interests each had their own reason for war. Oil and Zionism seem to me the two biggest.

truthmatters
09-16-2007, 10:55 AM
4

avatar4321
09-16-2007, 11:07 AM
Your hate adds nothing to the discussion.


Neither does yours.

Sitarro
09-17-2007, 10:26 AM
So the left jumps up and down thinking that once again that their silly ideas were being validated....nope, didn't happen. Read it and weep leftys.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2007; A03

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

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 was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."

Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster, either through war or covert action. "I wasn't arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.

Greenspan's reference in "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" to what he calls the "politically inconvenient" fact that the war was "largely about oil" was first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday and has proved controversial.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took issue with Greenspan on ABC's "This Week" yesterday. "I wasn't here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war," Gates said. But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true."

Critics of the administration have often argued that while Bush cited Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and despotic rule as reasons for the invasion, he was also motivated by a desire to gain access to Iraq's vast oil reserves. Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

Abbey Marie
09-17-2007, 10:33 AM
"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."


That says it all. Another non-story from the conspiracy-obssessed left.

darin
09-17-2007, 10:35 AM
I can hear the crickets sounding LOUDLY from the Libs' camp. :D

Hagbard Celine
09-17-2007, 10:37 AM
The Jewish moneyman doth deceive. He has every reason to toss out this popular left-wing canard so as to divert attention from the incredibly obvious network of Jewish neocons who sought the war to secure Israel's safety.

So once again, instead of confronting reality, you're content to invent conspiracy theories. Dubya's man 'til the end. How sad.

Hagbard Celine
09-17-2007, 10:38 AM
That says it all. Another non-story from the conspiracy-obssessed left.

YEAH RIGHT :laugh: That's a knee-slapper. WE'RE the ones who are "conspiracy-obsessed." HA! That's great. I'll have to file that little gem away so I can throw it in your face later. :dance:

Nukeman
09-17-2007, 10:40 AM
YEAH RIGHT :laugh: That's a knee-slapper. WE'RE the ones who are "conspiracy-obsessed." HA! That's great. I'll have to file that little gem away so I can throw it in your face later. :dance:

Save it for "truthdoesntmatter" as well. That is one conspiracy theory nut job ...

Abbey Marie
09-17-2007, 10:43 AM
YEAH RIGHT :laugh: That's a knee-slapper. WE'RE the ones who are "conspiracy-obsessed." HA! That's great. I'll have to file that little gem away so I can throw it in your face later. :dance:

Ah. yes. Throwing up dust because the thread has been debunked. :poke:

Oh, and btw, go read the Conspiracy forum. It's chock full of left wing nut theories. We probably should rename it the Mental Ward forum. Oh, but wait. Wouldn't want to let reality get in the way of a good insult, now. :laugh2:

Hagbard Celine
09-17-2007, 10:46 AM
Ah. yes. Throwing up dust because the thread has been debunked. :poke:

Oh, and btw, go read the Conspiracy forum. It's chock full of left wing nut theories. We probably should rename it the Mental Ward forum. Oh, but wait. Wouldn't want to let reality get in the way of a good insult, now. :laugh2:

"Debunked?" Hardly. You don't know the meaning of the term. Do you deny that Greenspan wrote what he wrote? A more credible source there is not. :laugh: You're killing me today.

darin
09-17-2007, 11:19 AM
"Debunked?" Hardly. You don't know the meaning of the term. Do you deny that Greenspan wrote what he wrote? A more credible source there is not. :laugh: You're killing me today.

He's his own source...Greenspan that is.


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.

Abbey Marie
09-17-2007, 02:15 PM
"Debunked?" Hardly. You don't know the meaning of the term. Do you deny that Greenspan wrote what he wrote? A more credible source there is not. :laugh: You're killing me today.

Well, you are easily slain.

Go re-read the quote dmp and I both bolded from Greenspan, sweetums. :laugh2:

BoogyMan
09-17-2007, 02:34 PM
"Debunked?" Hardly. You don't know the meaning of the term. Do you deny that Greenspan wrote what he wrote? A more credible source there is not. :laugh: You're killing me today.

First lets understand what "debunk" means.



de·bunk /dɪˈbʌŋk/
Pronunciation[di-buhngk]
–verb (used with object) to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.

Now, with the shiney new knowledge of that word settling firmly into your mind, please read for your edification HC.


Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

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 was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."

Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster, either through war or covert action. "I wasn't arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.

Greenspan's reference in "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" to what he calls the "politically inconvenient" fact that the war was "largely about oil" was first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday and has proved controversial.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took issue with Greenspan on ABC's "This Week" yesterday. "I wasn't here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war," Gates said. But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true."

Critics of the administration have often argued that while Bush cited Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and despotic rule as reasons for the invasion, he was also motivated by a desire to gain access to Iraq's vast oil reserves. Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

Though Greenspan's book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president's lack of fiscal discipline and the "dysfunctional government" he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. "They're not surprised by my conclusions," he said.

As for Iraq, Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

Given that, "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.

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

Debunked? Oh yeah, and big time.

TheStripey1
09-17-2007, 03:24 PM
More than likely, a variety of special interests each had their own reason for war. Oil and Zionism seem to me the two biggest.


don't forget the arms dealers... cuz they're doing a BANG up business selling guns and ammo to seemingly all sides.....

Joe Steel
09-18-2007, 07:04 AM
don't forget the arms dealers... cuz they're doing a BANG up business selling guns and ammo to seemingly all sides.....

A Perfect Storm...

Big Oil, profiteers, zionists and neocon crazies all found Bush to be the perfect useful idiot.