"...The Iraq war is largely about oil." Says Alan Greenspan the Former Federal Reserve chairman . Greenspan, who is a lifelong Republican, writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress.
Here we have another person from within the upper echelons that be stating the truth. The other Richard Clarke (who worked for the State Dept. under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Dubya and was promoted to chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council). Clarke was immediately demonized for his unpopular stance on the Iraq threat.
I highly suggest that you read what Greenspan says about republicans and the conservative elite who march to battle with empirical hubris over oil under the Trojan Horse of “Eminent WMD Threats / Democracy”… take your pick.
I highly suggest that you read what Greenspan says about republicans and the conservative elite who march to battle with empirical hubris over oil under the Trojan Horse of “Eminent WMD Threats / Democracy”… take your pick.
"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows -- the Iraq war is largely about oil," he wrote in reported excerpts of the book, which is set for release on Monday.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, while explaining his "respect" for Greenspan, rejected the charge that a thirst for crude explained the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true," he said on ABC television Sunday. "I think that it's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction," he said.
Some articles on Greenspan and his highly respected stance and criticism of the Bush administration.
- Greenspan labels oil as prime motive for Iraq war
- Greenspan memoir links Iraq war to US thirst for oil
- Greenspan's shock: oil behind Iraq invasion
- Greenspan Says Politics Are Getting In The Way Of Sound Policy
- Alan Greenspan: "Iraq was invaded for oil"
Who is Alan Greenspan?
Greenspan is an American economist and was Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006. Following his retirement as Fed chairman, he accepted an honorary (unpaid) position at HM Treasury in the United Kingdom. Read More on Wikipedia.
12 comments:
Actually he is a life long libertarian (actually being a personal friend of Ayn Rand while still in college). He is registered as a Republican (like most mainstream economists) because that is the party that allows free market ideas to flourish.
Just as the Cascade Policy Institute in Oregon leans Republican it is far from being partisan beyond the message of its values and beliefs.
As with Milton Friedman and other libertarian economists they allied themselves with the movement conservatives within the Reagan Revolution because of the shared belief that free markets and tight money control were part of a conservative reform agenda.
The neocons are not of the same. Your now making my points with this post.
Also this is probably your best post yet (though I disagree with your analysis). You are actually expressing your own thoughts and analysis instead of dittoing proxy thoughts of others.
You're splitting hares. We might as well say "Libertarian Republican"
but somebody already beat us to the punch
.
Where he says in his book, ""The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," in which he "is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party's principles on spending and deficits." According to the New York Times, which got an advance copy of the book, "The Republicans in Congress lost their way...They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose." "
In light with what you just said, the article comments, "Remember now, Alan Greenspan is no liberal. In fact, he's a libertarian Republican and Ayn Rand disciple. But he's also a truth teller, and now he's doing just that: "
Being the … Moonbat that I am, I would go so far as to say that a Libertarian holds true to age old fiscal responsibility, to a certain extent. Something like… a republican with fiscal morals. Whereas the modern day neocon republican is simply just out of control.
The conservatives or Libertarians might proclaim fiscal responsibility but it has yet to be seen. Why is it that Clinton and his penis is the only president since Vietnam to create a surplus?
For those of you who don't know what a "surplus" is, it's when you get paid more than you spend in a given period of time. For most people, that might be a period of one month. If you have more bills than income, it is called a "deficit."
Clinton is the only president, I'm not sure, but I don't think he was one of those Fiscal responsible Libertarians.. was probably a democrat, who actually put us up on our feet by creating a surplus.
I would post the graphs, but I am limited in time. This is the "Federal Deficit" we're talking about. Not to be confused with the National Debt, wich is what the total amount of bucks the US is in debt. Jeepers, I think it's up to.. what… 3 Trillion? But that's just me guessing.
Notice Dare, how you do not support Greenspan's statements. You do not denounce Bush and Co., your love of choice. You do not denounce the current acts of the Iraq war our foreign policy or anything else.
You simply continue to cheer on, "save the cheerleader, save the republican agenda." Why is it, Dare, that I can denounce MoveOn.org and their hostility to the General yet you are unable to with your own party's actions.
You even justify Iraq with your previous posts.
But isn't Alan Greenspan a neocon under your definition?
He's against minimum wages, affirmative action, government manipulation or regulation of energy markets, and just about everything you said determined someone to be a neocon.
So yeah. I am splitting hairs. The hairs you give me.
And if you follow Greenspan in the 90's. He laid the expansion and surplus of the Clinton era at the robust inflation fighting and economic deregulation done by Reagan. Being a Reagan insider he would be prone to do that regularly in his writing.
I have also criticized the Bush adminstration plenty. So has Coyote, and Coyote has gone off in the past. But crying over failed policy in the past doesn't keep us safe in the future.
By the way. I've even criticized Bush on your blog. You just don't catch it because I don't attack people personally.
Just to mention it.
I am following your blog because I can tell by your analysis you haven't looked very deep into what you believe. Much of what I'll put up is just to push what your writting (they are just the logical arguments in opposition to yours).
I assume your in college and actually care about the issues your examining. But you are in deep danger of being manipulated by your party (this being exactly what you accuse me of being by neocons). There is no way you can support M49 for the basis on which you are arguing. It is mutually exclusive (stopping development and perserving M37 rights).
Think for yourself and accept that you don't know everything because a liberal profesor told you it was the case.
But isn't Alan Greenspan a neocon under your definition?
True, I use the word liberally for all your ilk. But I love to see one of your own use OUR WORDS against you, and I won’t hesitate to spotlight it in a second. Greenspan is an economist. By definition, that puts him above all the rest of the politicians. But don’t you find it interesting that someone of such repute is parroting what the bleeding hearts have been saying for years?
Have you no comment for what he has said Dare!pdx?
He's against minimum wages, affirmative action, government manipulation or regulation of energy markets, and just about everything you said determined someone to be a neocon.
… hmmmm, well that’s not good. If he said any of that, he’d then be part of my ridicule, but he didn’t.
I’ve noticed something about you Dare!pdx. I have to respect your Karl Rovian skill in pulling Red Herrings out of your pocket at every step of the way. Notice… notice how the subject matter is not “ME,” as much as you want it to be. It’s IRAQ and the decisions your party has made. NOT ONCE have you come out and said, “you know, Greenspan is right, there is blah blah blah yaddy yaddy yaddy” and voiced an opinion in opposition to your party. Not once.
You skillfully ALWAYS manage to turn the argument around and make it about me. This is about Greenspan and his opinon on the war and his statement that it is about oil.
Your friend Coyote yip yip deletes my posts due to profanity yet you do your best to divert attention away from the scandals that plague your House Harkonen.
I have also criticized the Bush adminstration plenty. So has Coyote, and Coyote has gone off in the past. But crying over failed policy in the past doesn't keep us safe in the future.
HA! I have yet to see it. You’re too busy pointing the finger at me, accusing me of “being naive” “being in college” “not serving” blah blah blah.. when in reality, I’m the only fight you guys have other than Dartanon and maybe a bunch of anonymouses that lurk about.
By the way. I've even criticized Bush on your blog. You just don't catch it because I don't attack people personally.
Silly me, I must have missed it. I’ll keep a better eye on the scope next time. Listen, the only time you guys ever start flip flopping is 2-3 years into a deep hole that your leader got you into. Notice how many republicans are jumping ship now that it’s in vogue. Admit it! Where were you 2-3 years ago? Did you feel the same way then? Where were you in 2003 during the Presidential State of the Union Address? Don’t give me any of your flip flopping pandering “I’m not one of them Shrubbies” speeches. You guys do jump ship when it suits you.
And your team accuses us of doing the same. Look at the posts after BOTH Dartanon and myself disavowed MoveOn.org’s statements. Your team, other than Coyote, basically, called us liars.
I am following your blog because I can tell by your analysis you haven't looked very deep into what you believe. Much of what I'll put up is just to push what your writting (they are just the logical arguments in opposition to yours).
Dare!pdx. I’ve read Ballot Measure 49 and House Bill 3540 inside and out. I’ve researched 50, I’ve spoken to over 25 people, 21 have no idea what the hell is going on, don’t know when the election is and could give a crap over either ballot measure, the other 4 were fuzzy on the matter. I’ve made no less than 6 phone calls and finally managed to talk to some guy in one of the departments, probably the janitor, that answered some of my questions that were the result of you guys forcing me into a corner.
I’ve even heard some arguments of concern from gay liberals that put your arguments to shame. Stuff I’ve never even heard of that caused me to take three steps back and re-evaluate my entire stance. Of course they over analyze things and they will ultimately vote yes on both 49 and 50 but they still had some valid concerns over the creation of both measures.
And “NO” I’m not going to share them with you because you’ll just use them against me and I have no way in hell to argue against those points at this point in time.
I assume your in college and actually care about the issues your examining. But you are in deep danger of being manipulated by your party (this being exactly what you accuse me of being by neocons). There is no way you can support M49 for the basis on which you are arguing. It is mutually exclusive (stopping development and perserving M37 rights).
Standard neocon trick here. It’s a back handed slam. Kind of like when Rove or Snow would say, “… look, I’m not going to question his patriotism, but….” Notice that they don’t need to blatantly question Clarke’s patriotism all they have to do is state that they are not and it’s good enough, the seed is planted and they score a point.
You’re just slamming me because you feel like it. So be it. Payback is payback and I can take as many punches as you can dish out. I at least have supporting links for my statements, where as you merely have opinion and hyperbole. We both accuse each other of being lemmings. No point scored. You simply have not analyzed 49 thoroughly.
I think for myself every day. Notice I was the first tree spiker to state that I didn’t agree with MoveOn.org on your guys’ forum. I didn’t even bash the general here because it took me a while to formulate my thoughts.
Believe it or not, I listen to everyone, including the chimp neocons who blather senseless nonsense. Every now and then something comes out that sounds interesting. I write it down and I go research it. I side with that which makes sense in my puny pea brain.
Ha, ha, ha, ha......
I'm an economist. So am I above the political ilk? Rob Kramer is an economist.... What about him?
Greenspan has a long history of pointing to the failure of liberal interventions in the market place. He was Reagan's right hand economic adviser. Milton Friedman was a peer of his. Greenspan was a personal friend of Ayn Rand (have you learned who that is yet at your community college).
You've read M49. You don't even know what your reading.
Look back to your initial comments about M37 and strip bars. Ohhh, remember how you went apeshit over this issue (equating it to social-conservatism).
In reality strip bars are regulated under conditions of free speech and are separate from standard land use. This is one small example of your inablity to even understand the measure.
Simply asked......
Do you think more litigation is a posative for land use?
Do you think it should be necessary that a land owner need an attorney or consultant to communicate with their government?
Also, you also don't listen. You react and attempt to project your disfunction response onto others.
Waiting for an answer.
Reading back through your posts. I like how I always provide factual instances and examples. Then you accuse me of not providing facts. Its funny.
All that cognitive dissonance, avoidance, and then projection on your part.
I'm an economist. So am I above the political ilk? Rob Kramer is an economist.... What about him?
Really, first a lawyer, now an economist. My, you are busy. And you even have time to post an average of 7.9 posts/day. How do you do it?
Yes. I stand by my statement. An economist, regardless what you are (and I won't refute you on this, no need not to take anyone at face value) operates with numbers on their side. Politicians don't.
It's unfortunate that scientists also work with numbers, they even use cool things like percentages in their conclusions, but for some funky reason republican wackos still think that all current indications of "global warming" are results of witch craft or is simply the cyclical effects of global weather patterns and no cause for alarm.
Greenspan has a long history of pointing to the failure of liberal interventions in the market place. He was Reagan's right hand economic adviser. Milton Friedman was a peer of his. Greenspan was a personal friend of Ayn Rand (have you learned who that is yet at your community college).
Notice Dare!pdx, … AGAIN, that you never acknowledge the meat of the argument that has been presented. I tell you this every time and you simply dance around it. Meat = Iraq/Oil. Argument = We're in Iraq for OIL and Greenspan, one of your own, admits it and throws it in your face.
Now.. what's so hard to sticking to the subject?
You've read M49. You don't even know what your reading.
Wow… what an argument. Is that it? "I don't know what I'm reading?" And you come at me with strip bars? WHO CARES ABOUT STRIP BARS?!
This isn't an argument about "more or less litigation." Who cares??? Cases of Litigation or Lawsuits will continue as long as man breaths oxygen and knowing the craftiness of lawyers, will go on for some time after. This isn't about litigation. It's about land conservation. Why can't you get it through your skull?
You guys are so practiced at confusing fence sitters that you're starting to believe your own bile.
Do you think it should be necessary that a land owner need an attorney or consultant to communicate with their government?
Jesus Christ. Of the 7,614 Measure 37 claims that were filed, lawyers filed 1,837 of them. And 282 of those claims were filed by five firms across the state, including Schwabe.
So what's your point Dare? What are trying to say? That 49 makes things complicated so people have to hire a lawyer so we best not do measure 49? Jesus Christ, more people get divorced every day than get married and they hire lawyers at the drop of a hat.
HEY! This is the U.S. of A! Lawyers are here to stay and they ain't going nowhere. Hell, I even have two myself, and I hate lawyers.
Also, you also don't listen. You react and attempt to project your disfunction response onto others.
What? What was that? I missed that last part.
Its called undergraduate and post graduate education. Usually combined with a career in between. There are also many politicians of all political persuasions with a background in economics in public service.
Most of them use their understanding of the subject credibly. But even within any profession there are a multitude of opinions and interpretations.
As for your blanket statements about Republicans. They don't fly.
There are plenty of Republicans including me that who look at the debate around global warming and concur. I attended a speech by a diplomat working in the Bush adminstration who gave a pretty large talk about climate change and the work being done with the EU. This was approved policy under the Bush adminstration.
By poll numbers a majority of Republicans believe that human activity impacts the planet and that laws should protect the environment. We just don't believe in the same policy stance as Al Gore (same as most of your party).
Again back to my big statement about your blog. The world is not a black and white, us versus them place. Only political hacks attempt to make it such (or those within the party attempting to manipulate a base as MoveOn.org consistently does).
As for the Meat = oil..... What about it? Greenspan was likely talking about the region to ensure supply. He's done that before. If you actually read his book (and followed him during his time as Chairman) you'd know this. Instead you pulled a small snipet out of context which is a typical hack move.
Alan Greenspan points out that protecting the oil resources are the primary motivator for our policy within the middle east (which differs a great deal from Africa a region with the same poli-religious makeup).
You took a great conservative's words out of context bending them to make a point you don't even have a real logical grasp on. Furthermore you attempted to call him something other than a conservative though his own political leanings would qualify Greenspan as a "neocon" in your book.
I've never argued over oil being a factor in our policy. You've assumed a great deal of arguments on me and then expected them as responses.
Thats not the way our relationship works.
You push out unthought ditto-think provided by your insular world of nondebate. I answer with more facts (which you usually ignore or say no facts werer provided).
Greenspan is a leading conservative. He has a great deal in common with George W. Bush (more Bush than you). He can provide in depth analysis and a difference of opinion and it will be welcomed by my party.
Who do you think the fan base who will buy his book is? Sure is hell isn't your social circle.
Just to ask. How many well read conservatives do you even know? Do you typically hurl insults at them and wonder why they don't even talk to you?
And for the final parting shot about M37. You give the facts to back up my statement. A commanding majority of the claims were brought directly to government by the property owner. The claims brought by attorney's were probably from corporate counsel's that represent the commercial owners of the land (that would be the Halliburton presence you so fear).
Again I ask a simple question. Formulate a response given your values and thoughts on government. (Your answer need only take a few lines by itself)
Do you think its right that you would need a lawyer or consultant to communicate with your government about basic rights?
Well, then you're doing alright with that masters behind your name in economics.
I wonder if those in the economics realm have their "opinions and interpretations" as mere reflections of their own political belief. Kind of… starting from the conclusion and working backwards syndrome.
You say my blanket statement about Republicans doesn't fly?? You say that "there are plenty of Republicans including me that who look at the debate around global warming and concur."
Dare… you might carry more than enough brains to be merely dangerous but you simply have to do research before you go on record like that.
I back up my statement with your party's own historical stance. You guys have always poo-poo'd the left's claims of global warming. It's just extremely recent that your team went from "liberals are chicken-little's crying about global warming" to "ok, we've always said that it exists… we just don't think that humans are involved" to "ok, it exists and humans are involved but we just don't agree with the politicizing of global warming that the left has done and we don't like their extreme, green, anti-corporate plan for America!"
Flip Flop!
Global Warming Theory Blown Away by Republicans
"The unusual public tiff between two powerful GOP lawmakers highlights the sharp divide that drives the nation's climate change debate. Barton, along with President Bush and many other House Republicans, opposes mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions and questions the science underlying such efforts. Boehlert, who backs limits on carbon dioxide pollution, said he fears such attacks could chill future scientific inquiry."
"The National Journal asked 113 members of Congress, "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" 95 percent of the Democrats polled replied "Yes" and a mere 13 percent of Republicans did".
"..that the current political hysteria surrounding global warming is thwarting the very scientific process its proponents claim to represent. "
Poll of Republican and Democrat stance on Global Warming
Nope, looks like republicans still corner the market in prevailing "poo-pooh" theory.
"Again back to my big statement about your blog. The world is not a black and white, us versus them place. Only political hacks attempt to make it such (or those within the party attempting to manipulate a base as MoveOn.org consistently does). "
Dare!pdx… Rarely are things exclusively black or white and rarely has anything been as black and white as our current Republican/Democrat party war. This is black or white, whether you choose to admit it or not. The world has grey as well as black and white. But here… it is "us" vs "them" and the "them" is your team, the Republicans.
I do not "make it such." It simply is that way. I've gone on to your forums under the guise of a conservative. I wanted to see what your team talks about, how you think. It's scary. You guys are organized, motivated, focused on one and only one agenda with the intensity of an MBA intern in a Fortune 500 company. I've seen a Manifest and even down loaded it. (but I don't know what happened to it)
The entire focus is to crush the democrat/liberal opposition through the betterment of the republican party at all levels. Be it through your think tanks or baking groups, the agenda is there. I've seen it. But unfortunately, the trusting Democrats are still asleep at the wheel.
Calling me a hack is merely a way to invalidate me and make me look like a whackjob! A Monger! A Troll! It is also part of the plan, whether you subscribe to it or not. Hubris and ad hominem is alive and well in the Republican Manifesto.
"If you actually read his book (and followed him during his time as Chairman) you'd know this. Instead you pulled a small snipet out of context which is a typical hack move. "
I plan on reading his book. But quoting Greenspan, in context is not grounds to label me a "hack." I quoted him, the statement is extremely forthright and upfront and besides… who the hell do you think I got the idea from in the first place?? I learned from your team Dare! This is your own team's strategy and you call me the kettle black?
"You took a great conservative's words out of context bending them to make a point you don't even have a real logical grasp on. Furthermore you attempted to call him something other than a conservative though his own political leanings would qualify Greenspan as a "neocon" in your book."
Quoting in context is not bending his words to make my own point. If he did not say those words, then simply call me a liar and I'll fess up.
You continue to attempt to differentiate "neocon" from Republican and Conservative. You don't get it. Perception is reality. Prevailing perception is that the "United States Americans" (Miss T.S.C.) simply don't trust your team which is one and the same because of your agenda, both domestic and foreign. In other words.. you guys are liars! LIARS.
Oh… I must be a hack for stooping to name calling. How come I can mark up the inadequacies of the impotent democratic party but you don't give an inch. Traditional republican ploy. Perception is reality and Republicans and Libertarians (pseudo-non-republican wannabes) are all neocons. You saying otherwise, splitting hares makes no difference.
"I've never argued over oil being a factor in our policy. You've assumed a great deal of arguments on me and then expected them as responses. "
Then make your claim. You're so damn proud to not drape the flag and fallen soldiers over your torso as most republicans do.. . then make your damn claim. What the hell do you stand for? … As you continuously post on the NW Republican blog.
"You push out unthought ditto-think provided by your insular world of nondebate. I answer with more facts (which you usually ignore or say no facts werer provided)."
What a bunch of horseshit. You have never… ok maybe once, never responded to my posts/issues. You're faster at whipping out a red herring than any guy I've ever met! Your statement is simply not true.
"Just to ask. How many well read conservatives do you even know? Do you typically hurl insults at them and wonder why they don't even talk to you?"
Good question. I deliberately don't associate with them. The last one, my old manager, I actually liked. He pushed me because he was actually more read than the rabid hill-billy Greshamite or Incestacadian. He's a good guy but his "well reading" was merely more kindling and tinder to support his already fabricated conclusion. I have yet to come across a conservative who did not think like this. (And I'm not saying that the bleeding hearts don't do the same thing)
Let me ask you Dare!pdx… how many liberals have you had any success in getting to change their mind on a subject? This is a real question, feel free to answer it.
"Again I ask a simple question. Formulate a response given your values and thoughts on government. (Your answer need only take a few lines by itself)
Do you think its right that you would need a lawyer or consultant to communicate with your government about basic rights?"
This is a loaded question, and you know it. The answer is "No." But we already established earlier that the world is not black and/or white. This is politics and unfortunately, just like in business, what is "right" is not always reality. Is it right that a person who merges a business needs a lawyer? Every businessman out there who earns more than his weight in annual dollar bills has a lawyer to protect and cover his ass.
Is it right that a simple businessman needs a lawyer to keep his ass from getting sued? Or a psychologist who tries to warn the police that his patient is homicidal ends up getting sued because he did not warn the person who ended up getting killed? Politics and business are confusing when you're putting things in print.
No, It's not "right" to need a lawyer… it's simply smart business and those who don't aren't doing their due diligence because legalese, by definition, is subjective to interpretation when either not properly written or intentionally written to obfuscate.
Do you accept this answer Dare!pdx?
Actually its a BA with honors which can get you some pretty sweet policy related political jobs. That by the way gets you into really sweet law school.
And from that point you should know enough people to get an equally as great job before graduation.
In reality economists use the scientific method. Do you know what that is?
As for your biggoted blanket statements. You live by that partisan sword you'll die by it. Or in all liklihood become utterly disgusted with politics as opposed to actually get anything accomplished.
People who get things accomplished have respect for the ideas of others. Joe Biden and Barack Obama work with ideas and results. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards work by dividing people. No revolution or reform agenda was ever forwarded by excluding more and more people. They in fact unite them.
Both parties have a great deal of conflict with various persuasions holding power at different times throughout the US. Both Democrats and Republicans have major middle grounds dependent on the state they reside in. This is the beauty of Federalist Democracy pure and simple.
Do you know what Federalism is?
In fact from what I can see you really are working very hard to dismiss all thinking by proxy to the parties being static black and white organizations. You really want to boil down regions, states, and longstanding local philosophies into a national Red and Blue state map.
Wrap that up with a bow and stir because additionally you seem seriously filled with hate.
As for the answer to a simple question.
You didn't answer it. I didn't ask whether business men (or large complex relationships) should need lawyers.
Do you think its right that YOU need an attorney to communicate with your government? You.... Do you think your government should be that inaccesible. That it takes a professional class of people to talk with it?
This is a fundamental question relating to philosophy. It should be answered by a yes or no. (Steve Novick would say that it isn't a problem; government would just provide free attorneys)
I know more liberals than conservatives. I work as a professional in Portland.
Furthermore I have many friends who are not only liberal but work as career political democrats. We disagree and still like each other. We are not intimidated by each other's ideas.
Also, my first job out of undergrad was as an employee of a Democratic campaign. I also read political biographies and pop-books from both sides of the spectrum.
Your logic is simplistic and its a shame you don't actually seek to expand your concept or ideas. That starts with talking respectfully to people who disagree with you. It is the unique concpet on which the United States of America was founded on.
Post a Comment