Greenspan admits Iraq war is for oil. Who now can ever believe Bush again?

      Home » World events & politics » Greenspan admits Iraq war is for oil. Who now can ever believe Bush again?

Greenspan admits Iraq war is for oil. Who now can ever believe Bush again?

This is a damning admission from a republican and powerbroker as to the real reason for the iraq war.

How can Bush stand in front of the American people now and claim the war was for WMD? Surely the last defence of his actions has gone.

I find this really saddening, when the Iraq war was commensing I totally believed Bush, Blair and Powell as they did their dog and stick act over Iraq. It must have been a more innocent more gullable time for the world, where leaders were assumed a mantle of infalability and personal honor because of their position.

For the protesters who chanted "No blood for oil" I was dismissive, assuming that they were misled, misguided, dupes for anothers agenda. I never thought they were right and we were the dupes.

Even though most of the world woke up to the truth at the last American elections, Americans themselves still slumbered on believing the retoric and spin of their leadership enough to elect Bush back in for a seond term.

How now will the next election turn?

Who can imagine electing a leadership so corrupted and tainted by the lies of the last one. where honesty and integrity are subsumed to some sort of hidden agendas, with leaders who lie openly to their constituents.

Why could Bush not say to his people "We must go to war to protect our oil supplies". What was wrong with the truth that the American and world people could not hear it? Since when was the truth not acceptable?

Now when war with Iran seems imminent, as it has been for some time, and it looks like it might have valid reasons, how are we to ever believe anything that comes from the Whitehouse under this present regime?

How do we know that Iran is in reality the boogyman portrayed, who now holds the truth about the situation in the middle east.

Bring on the change in the leadership of America as soon as possible, and pray for an honest leader with integrity. It might make a pleasant change, and hopefully a return to a more innocent age.

At 81 Greenspan won't be trying to achieve any more political goals so this admission will be just honest plain speaking.

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy.
... Quote:
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil
he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

 http://www.timesonline.co.u...
By netchicken: posted on 16-9-2007

I dont get it. How does what Alan Greenspan has to say about the Iraq war have any bearing on Bush. The iraq war and international politics are quite frankly out of his core competency. If he is going to talk about the US economy, the SEC, the Federal Bank or the sub-prime markets, thousands would listen in rapt attention. But about international American politics, his guess is as good as mine.

All British news media and most European media for that matter define their existence on being rabidly anti- American in all aspects. As for having faith in the whitehouse I honestly believe that is not their concern or business in any means. The White House doesnt answer or care about what the British or the Europeans think, they answer to the American people. As long as the American people are comfortable, the White House has no reason to answer or vindicate themselves to anybody else, ever.

These British believe they are somehow Americans by proxy or something. Every British national thinks that they voted for George Bush or the Republican party. I just dont get it. I've never seen an American who urged Tony Blair or the new guy to make some domestic changes or stop his countries pillaging of Africa or some such. Why are these bloody Brits so nosy ?
By IAF: posted on 16-9-2007

Actually thats not at all true, for a very long time Europe was very pro American.

The anti Americanism you speak of is a new phenomeon from after the invasion of Iraq. Until then Europe was one of the safe places that Americans could visit and still be welcome. I personally met many young Americans who travelled and worked on the continent.

Just look at the outpouring of sympathy that the world showed at 9/11.

Look at the support in lives and committment that Britian has shown America in Iraq and Afghanistan since then, not to mention the other countries in the region such as Spain, Poland, and numerous other countries that contributed troops.

Since then the future of the west has been inixtricably entwined with the political machinations of the Whitehouse.

The 30 dead and 700 injured wounded from the London bombings, the 190 dead and 1,430 wounded from the Madrid bombings, and the 202 dead and 209 wounded from the Bali bombings, bare witness to that, as do the many other attempts at civilian attacks in the west.

The fire that Bush ignited burns stronger in Europe than in America, and although it might have been inevitable in Europe it has been precipitated by the invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately the opposite doesn't hold true, a new leader in Britian does not necessarily affect American lives, except in an abstract sence as it will lead to the faster withdrawal of British troops.

So the integrity of the American government has huge repercussions across the world.

People die across the world because of the decisions of Bush, and now to learn that even his highest political appointees believe that he has lied about the reason for the war is very disapointing indeed.

BTW changing the issue to poke blame at Europe and not to focus on the fact that Greenspan said the war was about oil is to miss the point.

Greenspan for many years was one of the most respected people in America, his words changed lives and financial markets not just in America but overseas. That someone with such a huge reputation and legacy should come forward with such a divisive and cutting comment is amazing.

Coming on the heals of Petreaus saying that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is just opening wider the huge credability gap that Bush is rapidly disappearing into.
By netchicken: posted on 16-9-2007

Greenspan was the Fed chairman, not the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA or POTUS.
Thanks for the assessment of who or what is the most respected man in America, but as an AMERICAN I think I just might have a little better perspective. Greenspan was respected (as one respects a dog that can rip a leg off) due to his position as Fed Chairman. Because he decided how much money was going to be in circulation, Greenspan had ultimate power over how one's retirement account would grow, how much one could get when selling a house or even if they could afford that new car they wanted. If he was that powerful among the citizenry, think of how much power he carried with the corporations.
By the way, the Federal Reserve is not even a part of our government, it is who we borrow money from. It is the Fed who owns the U.S. dollar. It is the very evil that our founders warned us to avoid, but like we allowed our government to ignore so many of the founders' warnings, that warning was dismissed as well.

So, Greenspan says it was all about oil; so what? That shocks you? Get real. Do you think any of us would give to hoots in Hell about the Middle East if it weren't for the oil. If it weren't for the oil, we (New Zealand included in the "we") wouldn't care if they warred against one another, slaughtered one another, imprisoned and tortured one another, and raped each others' camels, until the last day of the Earth!

Now, to make sure you don't forget, because it really does seem that you are focusing on Shrub and ignoring others, it wasn't just Shrub who made the declarations against Hussein. Before him were all the Democrats. The same ones who became doves for political reasons, all declared that Hussein was a danger to the world, had special weapons and was going to cause all the puppies of the world to be stomped to death. Just how are we able to believe any of them ever again?
Other states around the world also believed Hussein had special weapons and was trying to acquire more and better.
How in the Blazing Saddles are we ever going to believe other nations again?

And, while I am at it, we got into this stupid mess because of Clinton's weakness and inability to lead. Are you suggesting that anybody of the Democratic party is not presidential material if he/she served in government when he was POTUS?

Now, you know as well as I do that not only did Hussein have the special weapons but he had used them in the past. You also know that he dearly enjoyed playing shell games with the weapons inspectors and there was never a reason to think we had ever conducted a good and proper inspection that provided conclusive results. Furhtermore, had you read the report that came out a couple years ago, you would have reaqd that even Hussein thought he had miraculous weapons systems on the way because of his scientists lying to him. It was very bad to bring Hussein bad news. Seems everyone thought he had unconventional weapons. As a matter of fact, were we to search Syria uninhibited, who knows what we would find there that came across the Iraqi border in those convoys.

Speaking of Syria, let's go ahead and talk about Syria and Iran. After all, they are much more destabilizing than Hussein was, aren't they? Just like Hussein, they sponsor terrorism, but at a far greater level. Just like Hussein, they have special weapons. Itan is aggressively pursuing nukes and Syria, with the help of the North Koreans, might be doing the same. Iraq would be an excellent platform from which to jump boot-first on top of the heads of the Guardian Council in Iran, wouldn't you think? While Hussein was a danger to his own people, to the region and in a way, to the world, Iran was and is a bigger threat. I figured Iraq was an easier target and one that could be used for knocking out the Islamic extremism in Iran. I still think that is what will happen.

Now, as far as your assertion that the bombings by the Muslims of points in the West, you seem to have failed to miss a point, too. The West was ALREADY being attacked by the Muslims! You know what else? In case you have forgotten, the World Trade Centers were dropped BEFORE we hit Hussein, as was the Pentagon and Flight 93. So was the Cole and so were the Embassies in Africa. Hey did you even know that Hezbollah had reached all the way to South America to kill Jews? Speaking of Jews, the continuous attacks against Israel have been occuring since Israel was a nation.
Another thing you might want to consider, while you blame America for all the ills of the world. The leaders of the umma made it perfectly clear that they were going to take Europe this time, but they weren't going to try it in the military manner that they have tried in the past and failed. This time they are going to take Europe by out-birthing the Europeans. Want to see what is driving the hatred Europe feels for the States? Do a little research into the Islamic population in Europe. See how the indigenous Euros are turning into dhimmis, right before our eyes. See how their governments have already bowed to Arab and Islamic pressure. Witness the power of violence, as the Muslims riot over cartoons and the government bow to their demands.
Keep on blaming the U.S. wiothout even thinking about otehr players if you like. As I've said before, muster all you strength and take the position of leadership. I'm sick and tired of you snivelling little countries that expect us to do everything just as you think it ought to be done, while you all benefit from our sacrifices and expenditures. Maintaining stability in this world of ignorant little children is costly and we are now broke. We owe so much money there is no way to ever pay it back. So, take your myopia-inducing glasses off and see what you can do to create a superpower and then YOU try and make things work while the little beneficiaries yap at your heels.

By the way, here's something that falls right in with this. Remember, if you care to, that the same states that thought Hussein was a danger were the same ones who were opposed to going into Iraq. Why were they oppsed, a smart mind would ask? Well, it is because they were making money off of Iraq with their little under the table deals, that's why! Oh, please, don't pretend as if you forgot that! Surely, anti-American WE Got All The Self Righteous Answers Although We Can't Implement Any of Them self-righteousness can cause one to forget everything but American sins! See, it seems that other nations can forego decency and the Right Thing for monetary reasons.
Now, we have Iran. Anyone who can't see that Iran is causing the deaths of thousands in Iraq and plans to cause the deaths of millions in Israel is a fool. So, this being the case, what does the German government say? They say they will not support tougher sanctions against Iran because it will hurt the German economy! How about that? We'll not stop evil because it might cost us! Oh, but here is the kicker. They agree that Iran needs to be stopped, and so does other European snivellers, and they will secretly support it while they publicly condemn the U.S. when we go and waste our lives and money to do what needs to be done!

I suppose you might be able to understand why I am less than overjoyed by the continuous "America's activities effect us all" B.S., right?

Back to Greenspan. So what? For the reasons I pointed out in the above posted rant.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 17-9-2007

Europe was pro-American when they needed America to save their behinds from the Russians and Hitler. And it wasnt a VERY LONG time. It was at the most 40-50 years. The Euro's were snobbish before WW1 to America, then after WW1 left them humbled they started to sing a different tune towards the US which was more amicable yet still pissed off not jepordizing our nation for their vanity struggle. It was only after WW2, when they owed America a LOT of money and because we have physical control on most of Europe did they begin their sycophancy. This continued while they needed the US to fend off the Commies.
During 9/11 who was the first international leader to express his condolences ? It was Putin, not Blair or Merkel or any other Euro . Also many Euro's have said that the first thing they thought to themselves when 9/11 took was "Hey somebody is striking back at America" . You can be assured that was not the response most Americans had during the london, madrid bombings. Well obviously many Americans have worked in Europe, they have also worked in the Middle East, Africa, Russia, Australia etc. Europe to many of them has proven to be more hostile than most countries they have worked in.

Troop contributions have been apart from the UK and a few other mostly from countries with little military prowess. Most nations saw this not as an opportunity to show solidarity but as an opportunity to curry favor. Today, there are virtually no multinational troops in Iraq and the situation is improving rapidly. Every journalist who has gone there recently has said the same thing. Even those who were dismissive about the sucesses in Iraq in America.

The London, Madrid bombings have nothing to do with America. The London bombings was a result of homegrown terrorists thanks to British colonialism and lax immigration reform. The Madrid bombings had nothing to do with ISlam in the first place but was related to their Basque troubles. How does this concern the US ? Bali bombings occurred in Indonesia, were a lot of local Indonesians died apart from the Australians. Islamic fundamentalism has been eating away at that country too. More so than Australia. Do you really believe that some Islamist bomber is going to see if the white guys he's going to blow up are part of the coalition that attacked Iraq or not ? For him all white people are bad and he has an issue with all of them. Islamic fundamentalism is a problem not just for the West but for many other countries too like India, Russia, Philippines and Thailand etc but they dont expect to change US domestic policy or think they should be able to sway domestic American policy.

Also if Americas actions internationally have so much influence on the Euros then that means their local leadership is impotent and they have no identity or authority of their own over their own lives. How is that America's fault ? If they choose to breed terrorists at home like England or let arab immigrants run amok as in France and Germany, that is their domestic problem that they have ignored and now has blown up in their face. Many Asian countries like Japan, south Korea etc which have supported the War on terror show much less hostility and dont think they are proxy-Americans or the White House answers to them. If attacking Iraq was the cause of the terrorist attacks on their soil then how does one explain the terrorist attack in countries like Morocco, Turkey and Saudi Arabia ? These countries are muslim countries and they have faced terrorist attacks as well. Isnt it then naive and even cowardly of them to blame the results of their actions on America. We didnt coerce anybody into supporting our campaign in Iraq, these countries sought to do so on their own.

I can even explain this in a different context. Let us take WW2, Britain then was at war with Japan and Germany. Supporting British Interests the USA stopped exporting oil to the Japanese and resupplied Britain despite German threats. Guess who the Japanese bombed ? USA. Guess which countries citizens were killed in the shipping lanes ? USA. As I recall the American populace did not start saying things like "we should let Britian go to hell and stop supporting their war because American citizens are dying". There was no purile rants about Britian and their reckless leadership. No cheer and laughter as British cities were bombed from day and day out because they were the cause of 4000 USN sailors. I wonder how different it is really todays situation where Britain or Europe is supporting the US and they take a hit for doing so? Are they so craven and so defeated in mind, body and spirit that threats by a few despotic arabs makes them question their loyalties ? Such people are sycophants not allies.

Coming to Greenspan, the problem is reading European news media which doesnt tell black from white. Greenspan was like part of the furniture in the Federal Reserve. He's been there since Regan I think. What does Bush's appointment of him (yet again after many many terms) have any significance?
Even if Al Gore was president they would have appointed Greenspan. Because he is the best at what he does and that is regulate the American economy. Greenspan is a economist and a damn good one at that, his words regarding the economy are heard with the same reverence as a sermon. But if he is going to talk about the weather, Iraq, the war on terrorism, his opinions are just as good as anybody elses. What he has to say about IRaq, Korea or anything else is not something anybody would put stock into.

Also Patreaus said that he "doesnt know if Iraq has made the US any safer". I dont think ever said that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 . In Israel they get European CNN and during the Iraq war, everyday they claimed at least one school, one hospital and one breadline was bombed by American (not the coaltion but just America). They're mindset is warped and so they will pull out some excuse to bash America, like they have done here again.
By IAF: posted on 17-9-2007

Other than that, I think we really don't have much of an opinion about it. :tongue
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 17-9-2007

OK where to start with this. :tongue

Sure people said it was about oil, but Bush denied it publically many times and asserted it was about "freedom".

Now I don't mind if it was about oil, the dangerous aspect is the blatent and open lie to constituents and other world leaders. If you can be lied to you on this, then what else are you being lied to about?

The role of President demands at least a degree of truth and integrity. What was so bad about telling the truth that they couldn't say it?

You can never say that Bush is telling the truth if he stand up in front of the world and makes another speach, on any topic, ever again.

I see the replies here as "head in the sand" responses. While trying to finger point at everyone else from Europeans to the Arabs etc, the basic point has been lost. You have been lied to, to your face by your president.

Don't try to wrap it up in some fancy package to disguise the contents. This is the raw truth.

Again, remembeing back to the lead up to the war and the demonizing of European countries, (France Germany, etc) because they said it was a war over oil, they were right. They have been right all along, France was right, as the truth seeps out they are getting righter.

Remember the crap about Freedom Fries? People have short memories when it suits.

France was right then, maybe they are right now? Who knows, but you have to face that between the pro war and the anti war groups, it was the pro war that lied to the people.

Now that might not change anything mililitarily NOW, but there are historical integrity issues that I would believe to be verging ont he criminal.

IAF, have you been to Europe and talked to the people? I have, I was in Germany during the first gulf war and flew on emply planes from an empty frankfurt airport.

Why did they dislike America then? Because of the war being seen as "blood for oil". At time I seemed to be the only person there supporting America on the streets. Yet they were right.

I find the continual harking back to WW2 as a red herring, we are talking about an event over 50 years ago, it was another time. The arguments use use here can be attacked from numerous angles, and have been. even the bombing of Pearl Harbour is not as black and white as you would like. This is just obfuscating the issue to hide the truth.

Finally I saw a video on the news where a very old senator last week asked Pereaus along the lines of "Did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11. Pereaus said "no". It was as simple as that.
By netchicken: posted on 17-9-2007

And one more thing. The London bombings, the Madrid bombing, and the Bali bombings, are a DIRECT result of the invasion of Iraq. Not coincidental, not accidental, but cause and effect.

Now it might have happened eventually anyway, but the it cannot be denied, when the bombers in all cases use the war as justifications for their crimes.
By netchicken: posted on 17-9-2007

Ok, no reason to reply to you as the reply is only "head in sand."
You, as is typical with you U.S.-haters, is you are so intent on thinking that all evil comes from America that you can't wrap your minds around the fact that the the enemy is coming for you, regardless. You forget that they are already after us because we support Israel, and they are after Europe because they have to take back what they lost and will not stop there. You also ignore that they SAY they are going to take it.

Go ahead, blame it on us. What do we care? But, remember what I said about I just MIGHT have a bit of a clue as to whether or not Greenspan is one to listen to in regard to this. It is a non-issue, just something for the Bush-haters to eat up. Especially the ones who are not very knowledgeable of our government and don't even know that the Fed isn't even PART of it! :cool:

Whatever makes you feel cleaner for supporting the war that confirmed what Hussein would never let us find out properly, freed the people from horrors not seen in quite a while, and gave us a nice platform from which we can knock the tea-totling dog crap outta the Guardian Council if we have th esense to do it, with or without the lilly-livered cowards that once were our allies back when they needed us.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 17-9-2007

Calling "us" American haters, smacks of Mc Carthyism. Dissenting views are demonised and dismissed. Welcome to the world of Stalin and other demogogues, they used that tactic very effectively.

In a democracy dissent is allowed to exist outside of personal liking or disliking. You are just trying to dismiss my arguments by attaching a negative label so you don't have to address the basic fundamental fact. Bush. Lied. To. You. Its the fingers in the ears approach and shouting louder.

I can't address the last paragraph, as the entire statement is based on false and disproved 'facts'.

TC when will you stop automatically running to defend, and just LOOK at what is happening, try to detatch from the bit of your psyche that has a personal investment in Bush, or a distorted attachemnt that Bush = America. Bush does not equal America, in 8 months or so he will be gone. Forever. America will continue, he is just a politican. He made mistakes, BIG mistakes, mistakes that people are dying from, mistakes that eh world will take years to recover from.

Things might work out in the end, I sure hope they do, but it will be better men than George Bush who will repair it, and guess what they will probably be Americans. its not the end of the world to accept that your leadership is flawed, in fact its the beginning of understanding.
By netchicken: posted on 17-9-2007

I'm curious to see what the book actually says beyond that one quote. I just spent a few minutes checking some of the articles out that I found on google and its pretty funny how some news outlets just drilled that one quote where others looked at Greenspans criticism of Bush's spending to be a bigger piece of the whole view. Here's a couple more reliable sources that take the quote a little further:

... Quote:
Perino also disputed Greenspan's line about the Iraq war, in which he said "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Perino said Greenspan has since "acknowledged that oil was not the president's motive for our engagement in Iraq."


 http://ap.google.com/articl...

... Quote:
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil, he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.


 http://www.foxnews.com/stor...

To address the comment that BUSH.LIED.TO.US. It's pretty much the belief of most of us (those that aren't democrats) that he didn't lie on purpose. He lied due to faulty info. He wasn't the only one to stand and make statements for the war. I think that's the point TC is trying to make in there somewhere. It's easy for you to say wake up and admit it....there isn't anything to admit. There are many of us who feel those WMD were moved prior to the invasion. I would rather hear you admit to what I just stated above.
By Venus: posted on 18-9-2007

Now this is a little more likely

... Quote:

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.


 http://www.washingtonpost.c...

Sure changes the whole argument doesn't it?

Don't keep us waiting on that apology about how you are willing to jump on any anti-Bush attack wagon at the drop of a dime......willing to spread propaganda because it fits your need.:tu
***************************************************
By Venus: posted on 18-9-2007

Yes, I have been reading that Greenspan has been backpeddling as fast as possible over his published statement.

I guess he got a phone call telling him to shut up :)

What we are reading now is pure damage control, which leads credence to the importance of his earlier words.

Good post on the topic here http://agonist.org/ian_wels...

What he said in the book holds more weight than what he says now. After all the writing as been composed, editied, proofed, probably numerous times. It would be no accident or slip of the tongue, or badly organized thoughts as this would be picked up long before it got to press.

Also his editor, lawyers etc would all have a read through it, and made sure it was accurate.

If this was just a flakey statement it would never have made it passsed the controls.

The book is the truth, the words now are just the backpeddling. How can it be any other way?
By netchicken: posted on 18-9-2007

Ohhh.....I see.....so when your news sources are incorrect the person quoted is "back peddling"? Now I understand.....silly me.;)
By Venus: posted on 18-9-2007

Venus look at this logically. Can you really imagine that such a stand out phrase, with the bomb shell it infers passed unnoticed into print?

Is this reasonable to assume? In a time where litigation and reputations are so important, that such a phrase was missed by all the people involved in producing his book when it smacks you in the eyes like that?

Look at the sentence again
... Quote:
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil
You mean that not one person said "Hey Greenspan, just what are you saying in this sentence?" And he says "well silly me, I didn't mean it like that, never mind no one will notice it"

Come on ....

Now YOU are being unreasonable. There are precedents for this type of backpeddling, look at Jimmy Carter, he has most of his post president life backpeddling on stupid statements he has made.

There are 6 stages to writing a book

Prewriting
Writing
Revising
Editing
Publishing
Promoting

In this case
... Quote:
Penguin paid an advance of more than $8 million last year for Mr. Greenspan's book, according to people familiar with the matter.

Promotion for the book includes appearances by Mr. Greenspan on CBS's "60 Minutes," NBC's "Today" and CNBC, interviews with foreign and U.S. media, book signings and speaking engagements.


Penguin are one of the most respected (if not THE most respected) publishers, there would be a phalanx of lawyers to check everything in it.

You would be REALLY clutching at straws to believe what he says now is the truth, and not what he has written, refined, edited, proofed, checked by others, etc etc.

Even you have to be honest on this point, Venus. Go on admit it for once. Rise above kneejerk nationalism and look at the facts.
By netchicken: posted on 18-9-2007

On a humorous side the Iraq was was originally called Operation Iraqi Liberation.

Gee guys I guess that's what Greenspan is talking about when he said "oil" From http://www.whitehouse.gov/n...

oil.jpg - 39.84kb
By netchicken: posted on 18-9-2007

Still giving U.S. Policy lectures to U.S. citizens, are we, Netty?
Better to backpeddle yourself, veer left(er) and go down the whole "He got that phone call" conspiracy avenue, right?
I'd imagine Greenspan would know what he wrote in his book, and I would imagine he would know if what he said is being taken out of context. I would also imagine that if someone were to pick up the phone and call the former Fed chairman (as if anyone tells the Fed chairman what to and not to say - you really have no clue about U.S. power, it's clear) the call would have been made before the final editing and before publishing.

Nettyy, thanks for the kneejerk lectures to us about our country, government and screwed up Fed Res system, but I think there might be a chance that it is YOU who should really have a sore knee right about now. Go and get a wrap for it, ice it down and relax a little. Your cute little cartoons and your conspiracy theories really don't alter a thing that Im have already pointed out even before his coming out and saying that he is being misquoted. Like I said before, it still changes nothing about the fact that the Fed is not a State Department policy maker, he is the main player in controlling our cash flow.

If we went in to steal their oil we, we even made a huge mess over that, huh? What a crock of knee-jerk anti-American tripe. But while you are shaking your finger in our faces, remember that Islamo-terror was already occuring before we attacked Iraq. They are going to attack those who oppose them; those who don't oppse them will be conquered, regardless, they'll merely roll over and wet on themselves.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 18-9-2007

LOL!!!

If you want to claim your US citizenship as a prerequsite for holding a political opinion about American politics then you have an obligation to being seen as a "representative" of that society.

Excuse me if I lecture a bit but its obvious, to even a pathetic outsider like myself that one of the founding principals of the American society is the right to express your own viewpoint.

You are trying to shut down my opinion with specious arguments which when shown to be inadequate change attack to claim the moral high ground instead.

If you want to claim your birthright as an American to make you superior in this argument then you also have to defend my right to say what I like no matter how much you like it.

Otherwise you are making a mockery of your own value system and showing that you are just at the same level of being as us poor non American mortals.

I guess you wont stop till you get this :zip :zip :zip

Mind you I must say its fun reading what all these other Americans are saying about Greenspans flip flop Here
By netchicken: posted on 18-9-2007

There is an old English adage: "Your rights end where my nose begins".

... Quote:


IAF, have you been to Europe and talked to the people? I have, I was in Germany during the first gulf war and flew on emply planes from an empty frankfurt airport.

Why did they dislike America then? Because of the war being seen as "blood for oil". At time I seemed to be the only person there supporting America on the streets. Yet they were right.


Desert Storm was for oil ?? Who told you that? George Bush Sr. declared war on Iraq because Saddam and his militia went on a rampage and attacked all their neighbours. Kuwait was under pillage, rapine and their leaders were threatened with death. The king of Kuwait was about to be killed by Saddams forces if the US had not decided to attack so promptly. I dont see how anybody can confuse the First Gulf war for anything other than humanitarian help to a nation under siege.

... Quote:

I find the continual harking back to WW2 as a red herring, we are talking about an event over 50 years ago, it was another time. The arguments use use here can be attacked from numerous angles, and have been. even the bombing of Pearl Harbour is not as black and white as you would like. This is just obfuscating the issue to hide the truth.

The time isnt important, it is the attitude. We suffered massive casualties just because we supported the British and the Europeans when we had no real motivation to do so. Today, the Euro's are ready to run and hide rather than face up to the daemons they have festered within themselves. Just take a look at France. They hated America since the 19th century and they were crippled by Muslims rioting as well. What does their disapproval of the Iraq war get them ? Many of their journalists were kidnapped (no doubt in an attempt to paint the War in Iraq as a complete failure ) by Al Qaeda and threatened with execution. What did their vehement support get them ? Nothing. They were killed just like anybody who doesnt prescribe the the jehadi ideology.

George Bush may have possibly lied to us but how does Greenspan saying so make such an assertion any more true than him not saying it ? He's just airing his personal political beliefs like any other private citizen. He was never part of this administration in making the determination to the Iraq war. The media is just hyping his book probably for the sake of propaganda or even so that Alan Greenspan could sell more books.
By IAF: posted on 19-9-2007

Last time I'm going to bother explaining something to you, Netty.

I am shutting you down about who knows what in my government because I think I probably have a little more knowedge about my government, how it works and who would know what about what. As I said, those of you who live abroad and get snapshots here and there but have no real understanding of the country and government yet want to tell us about it totally KILL me! But, carry on and have fun. I imagine the majority of the lurker/readers haven't a clue, either, therefore think you are the bright one.

You spent some time in Germany and learned they love America? Really? Wow, because in the four years of living there I didn't pick up on that. It was clear to me that the generation that was my age ranged from apathy to genuine loathing. Being that I am American, and being that I was there day-in and day-out and not peddling through, I am thinking that there is a chance I picked up on their 'tude toward America fairly accurately. But hey, I know, I am American, therefore I am not only wrong about how my government works but also what Germans feel about Americans after an extended time being around them. Everyone knows that a bicycling Kiwi will learn MUCH more about German opinion of Americans!

Please, forgive me for not clicking your link offer and reading other people's opinions, but you have all the fun in the world. I'm sure the TV-watchers are quite illuminating.

Funny how knee-jerk anti-Americans are, they are too busy trying to make up for their own country's power shortcomings to see where the truth is.
Do you brainiacs really think that Iraq was about oil? You people disregard everything else in order to twist a even less information to make America look bad when the real truth is a little deeper. It's just that y'all are too laze to do nothing but get 10 second blurbs on TV news or hear a little clip of gossip.

As if hardly anyone nowadays will take the time to actually read a BOOK, here's one that will explain where the REAL conspiracy lies:
Crude Politics by Paul Sperry. He explains the importance of Afghanistan and the oil and gas pipeline routes. This isn't some wild-eyed conspiracy BS book, it is written by a respected investigative journalist. If you want some anti-U.S. government/Big Oil ammunition, here it is. It is pretty sad.
Netty, you are about as wrong as cussing on prime time, I don't defend the country in a knee-jerk fashion. It might look as such because I don't go along with every attack in a knee-jerk manner, that's all.
By the way, have you read Greenspan's book, yet?
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 19-9-2007

... Quote:
Even you have to be honest on this point, Venus. Go on admit it for once. Rise above kneejerk nationalism and look at the facts.

You are very good at pushing those special buttons and you almost got me on that one.:sp

My dearest Chicken.....I am looking at the facts and being brutally honest. I'm afraid you have fallen for another liberal newpaper taking a quote and spinning it to fit their need. This time it was meant to be especially damaging because it came from a Bush / war supporter. Only problem is that most of us here in the states know better than to fall for it.

Thanks much for the book publishing lesson....I will keep it in mind when I write my memoirs.
By Venus: posted on 19-9-2007

When you write your memoirs don't forget to put in you turned out to be one of the 1 in 4 Americans that supported the most hated man on the Planet since Hitler. And the biggest failure in Presidential history. I'm sure your book will sell like fire crackers.

TuT
By TUTUTKAMEN: posted on 23-10-2007

You don't know much about American History, do you?
So, you are worried about what the world thinks? Really? So, you think that the world is real smart, huh?
You know what is the main problem with your blind hatred of Bush is? It keeps you from seeing other things. It also makes you think that anyone who is slamming Bush must be right.
Go have a drink and stew in your blind hatred, Bush's time is just about through. With any luck, your IMF and OWO buddies will yet again get someone in there that is lock-step with them as Clinton was.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 23-10-2007

I know enough Thomas and yes I believe 6000 years of collective culture carries a great deal more collective consciousness than a Nation that is a mere 230 years old. And was built on the backs of slaves and the genocide of many nations of people. Examine the roots and the history. The sole reason America is or was great is due to the exploitation of the prior Nations and that of abundant resources. Now we have little resource so those in power that have been in power for hundreds of years are exploiting what is left else where.

I am proud of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution but not of the War Mongers that are destroying both. Why don't you check out your loyalty and where it stands. Your a Nationalist I am an American Patriot. That is our difference.

Damn right I do not like the last four generations of the Bush Dynasty they have been munitions dealers since WW 1 and came here deeply involved in the East India Co. dealing in slaves and opium. Catch up on your history.

TuT

p.s.-btw you are always harping about drinking i can only surmise that you are working your way through a 12 step program. am i correct ? remember who is watching ! sherlock

oh ya one more thought, i do not hate any one. what i feel for bush and his family is more akin to disgust. is that clear Thomas.
By TUTUTKAMEN: posted on 23-10-2007

IMF-International Monetary Fund

OWO-I have no idea ? [old world order]
By TUTUTKAMEN: posted on 23-10-2007

This is way off topic but seeing that this thread has your attention and I am curious....

Tut....I have to ask.

Let's suppose that there is no NWO ...let's suppose there is two party's to choose from...lets suppose Bush never let the cat out of the hat with his Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton remark....with the current people up at bat and it really truly mattered...who would you vote for if you could in 2008?
By Venus: posted on 23-10-2007

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............

Snort...cough.....

I'm sorry, I fell asleep somewhere around genocide and hit delta-wave sleep definitely around you being a patriot. :) That was downright hilarious!

You should really have another drink or two, I'm sure it gets even better! I'm sure you can find another unopened bottle somewhere in your cabin.

The only thing clear, Tut-tut, is that you are so drinkenly enraged with fuming hate that you can't see the truth for the smoke in your eyes! A one-trick political pony such as yourself is no patriot, you are just a little man full of rage. Logic need not apply.

But you are a funny little man. One that doesn't know One World Order, but funny never the less.

Have another slug of the juice and rage on, man. This is why I unplugged the TV long ago! :dbguy
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 23-10-2007








Greenspan admits Iraq war is for oil. Who now can ever believe Bush again? | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy