Greenspan Says Iraq War Was About Oil

[Fat_Sunny]

This Is A Big Red Headline Over At Drudge Tonight. Here's The Link To The Article:

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

Accusations That Come Out In Tell-All Books That These Bozos Write AFTER They Retire Really Irritate F_S. If You Feel Strongly That Something Is Wrong, Do Something While You Are In Power To Change It.

As The Chairman Of The Fed, He Was In An Unusually Secure Position And Could Have Made His Point In The Run-Up To The War And People Would Have Listened.

Now He's Just Another Old Fool Trying To Preserve HIS Legacy.

What's The Opposite Of Courage? Hmm...Guess It Would Be Cowardice. F_S Thinks Greenspan Was A Coward.

[TheMojoPin]

Now He's Just Another Old Fool Trying To Preserve HIS Legacy.

It's not his legacy would have been damaged because of Iraq. How is this protecting anything of his?

And really, way to not the forest for the trees.

[scottinnj]

Well here's the opinion piece regarding Greenspan's book. I tend to see it this way:

Power, not oil, Mr. Greenspan-Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article2461241.ece)

[scottinnj]

Greenspan:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

Duh. Every move me make in the Middle East for the past 50 years has been about maintaining the world's supply of oil. That's why certain dictatorships get a pass from us while others get invaded by us-they are smart and sell us their oil at market prices, instead of threatening to use it to cripple our economy.

[epo]

Well here's the opinion piece regarding Greenspan's book. I tend to see it this way:

Power, not oil, Mr. Greenspan-Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article2461241.ece)

So you are telling me that a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch is disagreeing with someone who is trashing Bush?

Shocker.

[Kevin]

So you are telling me that a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch is disagreeing with someone who is trashing Bush?

Shocker.

BALDERDASH!!!

[scottinnj]

Of course it's not a shocker, but the editorial makes a point:

The real reason for the war was Saddam’s defiance and the projection of US power after 9/11.


At least when I went over there to fight in Desert Storm, they were honest from the start: That was 100% about preserving the flow of oil. One of the pre-war pep talks we got from our commanders was "we're gonna kick Saddam out of Kuwait so our families back home won't have to pay 5 dollars a gallon for gasoline"

[scottinnj]

The last paragraph is the payoff for me:

Mr Greenspan has a more reasonable charge against the administration. Instead of cutting expenditure, it spent taxpayers’ money like a drunk who has won the lottery. Many American conservatives regard Bush as they once did Lyndon Johnson, who also broke the bank by paying for an expensive war in Vietnam while allowing domestic expenditure to rip. Prudent Mr Greenspan will almost certainly agree.

[Yerdaddy]

Wouldn't have made any difference if Greenspan had spilled the beans while he was in office. Republicans wanted this war and they were going to get it. They would have thrown him under the bus just like they threw Joe Wilson and his wife under the bus. There were career CIA officers and retired generals telling us this would go badly and Army War College studies predicting exactly what we got and none of it mattered and still doesn't. I'd have prefered to have had Greenspan's opinion to lobby against the war back then, but it wouldn't have been my best source of information, nor would it have made any difference. So I don't consider him a coward for committing career suicide. I consider him an example of the culture of cowardess posing as loyalty in the US. I'd equate him with Powell, who's wrong decisions were meant to protect the US militay, and Greenspan's were to serve the US economy.

That said I will never forgive him for not keeping this bit (from a bigger article) a secret:

Most of [the book] was composed in the bath, a practice he began after he received a back injury in the 1960s. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461415.ece)

AHHHH! MY EYES!!!! YOU BASTARD!!!!!

[epo]

This Is A Big Red Headline Over At Drudge Tonight. Here's The Link To The Article:

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

Accusations That Come Out In Tell-All Books That These Bozos Write AFTER They Retire Really Irritate F_S. If You Feel Strongly That Something Is Wrong, Do Something While You Are In Power To Change It.

As The Chairman Of The Fed, He Was In An Unusually Secure Position And Could Have Made His Point In The Run-Up To The War And People Would Have Listened.

Now He's Just Another Old Fool Trying To Preserve HIS Legacy.

What's The Opposite Of Courage? Hmm...Guess It Would Be Cowardice. F_S Thinks Greenspan Was A Coward.

Fat-

It's been awhile, but I gotta think you are on the complete wrong side of this one.

Greenspan in his spot of Chairman of the Fed was in a non-political job. Simply put, he was an Administrator of the Federal Cash flow....and it was not his place on the job to mouth off about the decisions of the executive branch unless they interfered with his work.

This episode is simply a man writing a book with his opinion, albeit a highly informed one...and one that would understand the flow of money & how it can help to determine foreign policy.

If you wanna bag on somebody for trying to save their legacy, look up the name: Powell, Colin. That would be a tremendous place to start for blame.

[scottinnj]

So you are telling me that a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch is disagreeing with someone who is trashing Bush?

Shocker.


But they did run the article as well as the editorial. Can you say "Fair and Balanced?" Waka Waka!

[scottinnj]

If you wanna bag on somebody for trying to save their legacy, look up the name: Powell, Colin. That would be a tremendous place to start for blame.


Or Tenet, George. His latest book (http://www.amazon.com/At-Center-Storm-Years-CIA/dp/0061147788/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3540323-5710005?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189920305&sr=8-1)is a real rib-ticker. I loffed and loffed! Slam Dunk! Who'd a thought?

[Yerdaddy]

Well here's the opinion piece regarding Greenspan's book. I tend to see it this way:

Power, not oil, Mr. Greenspan-Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article2461241.ece)

Except that he doesn't really back up his arguments, does he? I'll wait for some other, better commentators' take on it. George Will will be interesting. He's pissed about the war. I'll also download the McLaughlin Group show this week. Most of all I'll wait for the excerpts from the book to see how Old Wrinklebottom himself came to this conclusion. I've never believed it was primarily about oil because the oil industry's studies predicted probable doom and the companies weren't lobbying for the war when I was lobbying against it. But oil was certainly a part of it and on the minds of the neocons at all times. This story will be more interesting a week from now.

[Fat_Sunny]

If you wanna bag on somebody for trying to save their legacy, look up the name: Powell, Colin. That would be a tremendous place to start for blame.

F_S Will Not Disagree With That At All.

And Maybe "Preserving His Legacy" Would Not Be The Most Accurate Phrase For Greenspan. Maybe It Was "I Knew The Truth, And I Knew Better, But I Kept My Mouth Shut To Protect The Administration."

Well, If You Kept Your Mouth Shut While You Were In Power, And IF It Was To Protect The Administration, Now You Are Out Of Power And You've Chosen To Embarass The Same Administration You Protected Before By Your Silence While In Power. How Is That Courage?

Yeah, And The Bathtub Part Was Disturbing. F_S Will Refrain From Saying He's "All Wet"!

[Yerdaddy]

Or Tenet, George. His latest book (http://www.amazon.com/At-Center-Storm-Years-CIA/dp/0061147788/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3540323-5710005?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189920305&sr=8-1)is a real rib-ticker. I loffed and loffed! Slam Dunk! Who'd a thought?

Yeah, I don't see Powell as trying to protect his legacy as he hasn't written a tell-all book, (and I wish he would), and his criticisms have come through less-than-popular outlets and deal simply with his role in the war, which is totally appropriate.

Tenet's book was entirely self-serving. But then again Tenet, (and more importantly the CIA), was more abused by the administration than anyone, being made the fall guy for the bogus WMD and al-Qaeda claims that came largely from Bush's political appointees rather than the career bureaucrats at the agency, who took the blame. Tenet's post-admin writing is an attempt to cover his ass while letting the rest dangle. Fuck him.

[epo]

This might have been a damning moment for George Tenet:

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/070424_070430/070430_TenetMedal_wide.hlarge.jpg

Talking your way out of that is a tough play.

[scottinnj]

Damn Straight epo. That was like Christopher swearing an oath of loyalty to Tony Soprano and having it videotaped and put on YouTube. Not much wiggle room there either.

[scottinnj]

Except that he doesn't really back up his arguments, does he? I'll wait for some other, better commentators' take on it. George Will will be interesting. He's pissed about the war. I'll also download the McLaughlin Group show this week. Most of all I'll wait for the excerpts from the book to see how Old Wrinklebottom himself came to this conclusion. I've never believed it was primarily about oil because the oil industry's studies predicted probable doom and the companies weren't lobbying for the war when I was lobbying against it. But oil was certainly a part of it and on the minds of the neocons at all times. This story will be more interesting a week from now.

To be fair, you have to admit that was an off the cuff response to the article, not necessarily the book. But you're right about George Will's take on it-and don't forget good old Pat Buchanan is sure to opine as well. I'm such a douche-usually I went with Pat, but we parted company on this one. I should have been in his camp on this one.

[scottinnj]

Greenspan:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

Duh. Every move me make in the Middle East for the past 50 years has been about maintaining the world's supply of oil. That's why certain dictatorships get a pass from us while others get invaded by us-they are smart and sell us their oil at market prices, instead of threatening to use it to cripple our economy.


Oh my God how did I not see that? Maybe I should switch my avatar from Bert and Ernie to the Cookie Monster.

[Yerdaddy]

Even creepier than the bathtub scene is that I just found out Greenspand was an Ayn Randian. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?em&ex=1190088000&en=cd6337257785a5ce&ei=5087%0A) I'm gonna go blow chunks.

Here's a more comprehensive piece on Greensplash's book. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15greenspan.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=d60e39a1499ed18b&ex=1190088000&pagewanted=print)

Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”

Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.”

Honestly, I've been thinking this for a while and now I'm gonna say it: You self-titled "traditional conservatives" have a great candidate for President in 2008. Now who can guess what her name is?

[scottinnj]

Honestly, I've been thinking this for a while and now I'm gonna say it: You self-titled "traditional conservatives" have a great candidate for President in 2008. Now who can guess what her name is?


You're going to make me say it, aren't you?

[scottinnj]

Greenspan quote from the NY Times article:

“They 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."

Hey, when he's right, he's right. We deserved to get our asses kicked.

[A.J.]

That said I will never forgive him for not keeping this bit (from a bigger article) a secret:

Most of [the book] was composed in the bath, a practice he began after he received a back injury in the 1960s.

AHHHH! MY EYES!!!! YOU BASTARD!!!!!

Now picture Andrea Mitchell in the tub with him.

[Bulldogcakes]

Wouldn't have made any difference if Greenspan had spilled the beans while he was in office. Republicans wanted this war and they were going to get it. They would have thrown him under the bus just like they threw Joe Wilson and his wife under the bus. There were career CIA officers and retired generals telling us this would go badly and Army War College studies predicting exactly what we got and none of it mattered and still doesn't. I'd have prefered to have had Greenspan's opinion to lobby against the war back then, but it wouldn't have been my best source of information, nor would it have made any difference. So I don't consider him a coward for committing career suicide. I consider him an example of the culture of cowardess posing as loyalty in the US. I'd equate him with Powell, who's wrong decisions were meant to protect the US militay, and Greenspan's were to serve the US economy.

Exactly. And it doesn't surprise me at all that an economist would look at this war in economic terms, that's his world view. Thats not to say that there weren't other elements (domestic politics, regional policy) that drove this policy as well and he admits this in that same article. He just thinks the economic part was the decisive factor. One argument critics of the war had that was never answered by its supporters was "If its not about Oil, why don't we invade Darfur?". The answer is the same as the reason why we didn't do anything about Rwanda, because we had no national interest there. Which is another way of saying oil in this instance.

I personally don't have the hangup about money that most people have. The political ties we have are usually based on economic ties, and the US military is the muscle that backs that up. Thats the real world. If a huge part of the world oil supplies was captured by a dictator like Saddam, he could have a trump card over the US and world economy. He could threaten to throw us and the rest of the world into economic chaos, which would have devastating impact on our economy and would be even worse elsewhere. Thats why the first gulf war made sense. But Saddam was contained, he was trading oil for weapons (ahem) I mean food, and he posed no threat to the US or world economy. Wait a minute . . . . . . . . . gee, I guess it wasn't mostly about oil after all. Maybe all that stuff about making Iraq the next Poland really was what they were trying to do after all, or they did honestly believe at the time (wrongly) that he was trying to rebuild his WMD capacity. Or both.

Greenspan should stick to economics.

[DonInNC]

Greenspan doesn't need to do anything to preserve his legacy. His body of work is strong enough on it's own. While I agree that he's late to the "it's all about oil" party, I don't think he deserves the chararcter assassination.

[Bulldogcakes]

Anyone else notice some of his other comments on Drudge (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news) yesterday?

Like this
White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose

and this
But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the "political operation was far more dominant" than in Mr. Ford's. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes.

What that means is Bush didn't give a rats fat ass about the deficit or huge national debt and never did. He actually likes deficits, they prop up economic growth which is good for him politically and Bush 1 was the same. His father is still pissed at Greenspan to this day for not lowering interest rates in 92 TO HELP HIM GET REELECTED. Thats how central banks are run in banana republics, not in first world nations. You might remember the Mexican peso collapse in 1994 just after their elections were held. But it goes to show that the Bush's don't care about the nation's economic health, just their own political fortunes. This is just one of many reasons why Bush has destroyed the Conservative movement, and it may take a Hillary presidency to rebuild it.