WaPo: Greenspan's new book praises Clinton, bashes Bush

Does The Maestro Hate America?

http://www.washingtonpost...id=topnews

namepeace said:

JellyBean said:

eh...we shouldn't even have the federal reserve. yeah, off topic, i know...but it's all i've got to say.

Should not have Banks at all, off topic I know and there is a lot more I'd like to say.

and as a cheap shot the mortgage debacle is under whose watch?

Also, Greenspan tells us that the war in Iraq was for oil.

http://www.informationcle...e18397.htm

Greenspan is more dangerous than Bush and Clinton, and Bush and Clinton are on the same team. The war in Iraq was not for oil, it was to contain it, create artificial scarcity in the promotion of the peak oil diamond type scam. Trust nothing Greenspan says, read between the lines of the elite, they play chess, while we play checkers.
[Edited 9/16/07 21:33pm]

JellyBean said:

lilgish said:

Greenspan is more dangerous than Bush and Clinton, and Bush and Clinton are on the same team. The war in Iraq was not for oil, it was to contain it, create artificial scarcity in the promotion of the peak oil diamond type scam. Trust nothing Greenspan says, read between the lines of the elite, they play chess, while we play checkers.
[Edited 9/16/07 21:33pm]

Greenspan praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies,calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of polical courage".


I've been saying this for years Bill Clinton reduced the deficit,balanced the budget and even left a surplus.His economic polices actually worked.He reduced spending and showed a tremendous amount of fiscal responsibilty.

Can people honestly say the same about Bush?

lilgish said:

Greenspan is more dangerous than Bush and Clinton, and Bush and Clinton are on the same team. The war in Iraq was not for oil, it was to contain it, create artificial scarcity in the promotion of the peak oil diamond type scam. Trust nothing Greenspan says, read between the lines of the elite, they play chess, while we play checkers.
[Edited 9/16/07 21:33pm]

JellyBean said:

from a follow up piece by Bob Woodward again:

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.

http://www.washingtonpost...87_pf.html

did anyone doubt is was about oil and money?

sassybritches said:

ehuffnsd said:

sassybritches said:

sassybritches said: