Greenspan tears BushCo and Congress a new one

[NorthSideSox72]

So, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has a book coming out. Among the many interesting tidbits that have been leaked/released...

 

--Says that the GOP Congress deserved its 2006 beat-down, because they had traded "principle for power"

--Calls Nixon and Clinton the two smartest Presidents he has worked with

--Says economic policy tended to flow from the inner White House circle, leaving SecTreas O'Neil out of the loop

--Says he was very close to, and highly respected, many of the people Bush brought into the administration. But that on a policy level, many of them "veered off course"

 

Given how much exposure Greenspan will have had to the inner workings of economic policy in so many Presidencies, I think I may have to pick up this book when it comes out.

 

[BigSqwert]

I guess I should expect to hear Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter claim that Greenspan is a partisan hack.

[Balta1701]

[Balta1701]

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

Another line in Mr. Bubble's book.

[Texsox]

And perhaps the two smartest had non working moral compasses.

[southsider2k5]

I watched the 60 minutes interview, and it was interesting to say the least. First of all, I am going to buy this book. I don't say that very often, but Alan Greenspan is one of the most incredible people in my lifetime. Not many people realize the all encompassing effect on our lives this guy had. Granted in retrospect he made some mistakes, but viewed against some of the past Fed chairmen, I don't think you could find many better people.

 

One of the interesting points of the interview was where he critisized the orginal Bush for saying interest rates should be lower, as a conflict of the indepedancy of the Federal Reserve, but then attending Clinton cabinet meetings, and spoke out in them. I am not quite sure how one was a conflict and the other wasn't but I do want to read and find out. It was also interesting to hear how much he like Gerald Ford as a person, and not as a President, while totally fearing Richard Nixon.

[Gregory Pratt]

All of this is old news if you've read The Price of Loyalty.

 

Might read his book, might not. Definitely won't buy it. Will probably borrow it.

[southsider2k5]

Another line in Mr. Bubble's book.

 

Alan has a bit of a clarification on that statement. Also for those who believe Greenspan is a blue-blood republician, they should know he is actually a self-declared Libertarian.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1627504220070917

 

By JoAnne Allen

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was "essential" to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.

 

Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that "the Iraq War is largely about oil," said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.

 

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

 

In his new book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan wrote: "I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."

 

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday rejected the comment, which echoed long-held complaints of many critics that a key motivating force in the war was to maintain U.S. access to the rich oil supplies in Iraq.

 

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Gates said, "I have a lot of respect for Mr. Greenspan." But he disagreed with his comment about oil being a leading motivating factor in the war.

 

"I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true," Gates said.

 

"I think that it's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's about aggressive dictators," Gates said. Continued...

 

Greenspan retired in January 2006 after more than 18 years as chairman of the Fed, the U.S. central bank, which regulates monetary policy.

 

He has been conducting a round of interviews coinciding with the release of his book, which goes on sale on Monday.

 

In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something."

 

But Greenspan's main support for Saddam's ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.

 

"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.

 

Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean "chaos" to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.

 

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.

 

DISMAY WITH DEMOCRATS

 

Greenspan, who in his memoir criticized Bush and congressional Republicans for abandoning fiscal discipline and putting politics ahead of sound economics, also expressed dismay with the Democratic Party in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on Monday

 

Greenspan told the Journal he was "fairly close" to former President Bill Clinton's economic advisers, but added, "The next administration may have the Clinton administration name, but the Democratic Party ... has moved ... very significantly in the wrong direction." He cited its populist bent, especially its skepticism of free trade. Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is the Democratic presidential front-runner.

 

Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the Journal he was not sure how he would vote in the 2008 election.

 

"I just may not vote," he was quoted as saying, adding, "I'm saddened by the whole political process."

 

[kapkomet]

OH OH OH... now the Democrats don't have a soundbyte anymore - but over the weekend, you heard nothing but this. But no, the media's not biased or anything. I heard several soundbytes Sunday morning about this.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

OH OH OH... now the Democrats don't have a soundbyte anymore - but over the weekend, you heard nothing but this. But no, the media's not biased or anything. I heard several soundbytes Sunday morning about this.

Huh? His "correction" makes it pretty clear he still stands by the heart of the statement. And its still partially true. He then also adds some comments on the Dems, because of course he isn't happy with them either. Like SS said, this guy is a Libertarian, and I think he's pretty disappointed in both parties right now. Seems to me there is plenty of ammo here for both parties, if they choose to use it.

 

[southsider2k5]

Huh? His "correction" makes it pretty clear he still stands by the heart of the statement. And its still partially true. He then also adds some comments on the Dems, because of course he isn't happy with them either. Like SS said, this guy is a Libertarian, and I think he's pretty disappointed in both parties right now. Seems to me there is plenty of ammo here for both parties, if they choose to use it.

 

Actually I took something completely different from this. I read it as this is how HE saw it. Greenspan thought that for the good of the oil markets, that we should take out Saddam. In his view, the war about about oil. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

 

Speaking of ammunition, I almost forgot about the interviewer asking him about Hillary for President. Greenspan was asked if she was capable, and he basically said yes. Then he asked about what he thought, and he gave a patented non-answer about waiting and seeing.

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually I took something completely different from this. I read it as this is how HE saw it. Greenspan thought that for the good of the oil markets, that we should take out Saddam. In his view, the war about about oil. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

 

Speaking of ammunition, I almost forgot about the interviewer asking him about Hillary for President. Greenspan was asked if she was capable, and he basically said yes. Then he asked about what he thought, and he gave a patented non-answer about waiting and seeing.

Yeah, its interesting, he should also have some experience dealing with lots of other candidates, which I'd love to hear. Any of he Senators he has probably at least talked with (Edwards, McCain, maybe Obama, Thompson), as well as Richardson from his days as energy secretary.

 

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, its interesting, he should also have some experience dealing with lots of other candidates, which I'd love to hear. Any of he Senators he has probably at least talked with (Edwards, McCain, maybe Obama, Thompson), as well as Richardson from his days as energy secretary.

 

There are very few people on this planet that I would be willing to pay to listen to speak. Alan Greenspan is one of those few. He is such an incredible wealth of knowledge. His interview last night actually gave me more respect for him.

[Yossarian]

I want to know how the hell can anyone have anything to do with the Fed, let alone be boss of the thing, and call himself a "liberterian"? As for Greenspan, he gave some of the most confusing and convoluted speeches and pronouncements when he was the Chairman. He must have hired a real good ghostwriter for his sure to be best seller. I give his Chairmanship mixed grades, much of the current housing troubles could be laid at his doorstep. He was better than Paul Volcker, who almost single handedly destroyed the northern tier of Rust Belt states with his policies in the early 80s. I consider myself somewhat of a liberterian, and really don't care much for the Fed as an institution. Modern Presidents must know, that their economic policies are at the mercy of an all powerful Federal Reserve Board and its Chairman (or woman).

[mreye]

--Says that the GOP Congress deserved its 2006 beat-down, because they had traded "principle for power"

--Says he was very close to, and highly respected, many of the people Bush brought into the administration. But that on a policy level, many of them "veered off course"

 

Wow. The same problems that Conservatives have with him and the reason for his 36% approval rating.

 

[southsider2k5]

Here is a better clarification that indeed saids Greenspan felt the second Iraq War was about Oil, not the Bush administration, and why.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2...s-his-real-view

 

The MRC's Geoffrey Dickens took down this exchange between Lauer and Greenspan on the September 17 Today on NBC:

 

 

MATT LAUER: You write a 500 page book and you know what happens, people want to talk about a certain couple of key sentences in that book. So let's get to a couple of them right now. In a chapter about the long-term energy squeeze you write, quote, 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.' Now as a lifelong libertarian Republican, as the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, you know that when you speak, people are gonna listen, they're gonna react. Liberal bloggers are having a field day with this. They're saying here's a Republican saying the administration lied about the reason to go to war. Is that a spin? Is that fair?

 

GREENSPAN: It's utterly unfair. I was expressing my view. Saddam Hussein was obviously seeking to get a chokehold on the Straits of Hormuz, where about 18 million barrels a day, flow from the Middle East to the industrial world. Had he been able to get a hold of a nuclear weapon and indeed move through Kuwait and into Saudi Arabia and control the Straits of Hormuz it would have caused chaos in the international-

 

LAUER: So are we talking about semantics here, Alan? In other words the, the administration went to the war saying it was all about weapons of mass destruction-

 

GREENSPAN: I believe, I think, I believe that they believed that. I'm not saying that they believed it was about oil. I'm saying it is about oil and that I believe it was necessary to get Saddam out of there.

 

LAUER: Maybe, maybe the better way to put it, it was about stability. It was about stability in a region and whether it was about weapons of mass destruction destabilizing that region or oil, it's all about stability.

 

GREENSPAN: Absolutely.

 

[Balta1701]

It takes about 10 seconds of looking at a map to realize that the statement about the straits of Hormuz being threatened by Saddam in the least is sheer and utter lunacy.

 

 

Iraq does not border the Straits of Hormuz. In fact, Iraq is several hundred kilometers away from the Straits of Hormuz. Iraq had no air force after the Gulf War. It was destroyed. And the southern part of Iraq was blanketed by a No Fly Zone, and had any Iraqi aircraft, had they actually existed, tried to enter that area, they would have been turned around or shot down. Iraq had no Navy. The straits are guarded by the U.S. Navy, and even if you tried to do a USS Cole style attack on the straits, you'd literally have hours and hours of a journey across the entire gulf to get there. Iraq had no missiles capable of reaching the Straits. The longest range missile in Iraq's arsenal pre-war was the Al Samoud-2 Missile, which was actually banned by regulations, which was being destroyed by the UNMOVIC teams, and which has a maximum range of about 180 km; not even half way to the straits.

[NorthSideSox72]

It takes about 10 seconds of looking at a map to realize that the statement about the straits of Hormuz being threatened by Saddam in the least is sheer and utter lunacy.

 

 

Iraq does not border the Straits of Hormuz. In fact, Iraq is several hundred kilometers away from the Straits of Hormuz. Iraq had no air force after the Gulf War. It was destroyed. And the southern part of Iraq was blanketed by a No Fly Zone, and had any Iraqi aircraft, had they actually existed, tried to enter that area, they would have been turned around or shot down. Iraq had no Navy. The straits are guarded by the U.S. Navy, and even if you tried to do a USS Cole style attack on the straits, you'd literally have hours and hours of a journey across the entire gulf to get there. Iraq had no missiles capable of reaching the Straits. The longest range missile in Iraq's arsenal pre-war was the Al Samoud-2 Missile, which was actually banned by regulations, which was being destroyed by the UNMOVIC teams, and which has a maximum range of about 180 km; not even half way to the straits.

That was pretty much my thoughts. Reading what Greenspan said, I couldn't help but think that this was a case of a highly intelligent person delving into an area they know little about. I don't think Greenspan is anything other than a genius, but even genius' are sometimes at a loss outside their areas of expertise.