Prosecute the torture.

September 17, 2007

Greenspan: It's About The Oil

It's finally been said.

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is quoted in the Washington Post:
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.
He's also got a few choice words about DC at the time he left office. DC, in his words was:
harboring a dysfunctional government
And for the GOP:

Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party's majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year's elections. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither."

He singles out J. Dennis Hastert, the Illinois Republican who was House speaker until January, and Tom DeLay, the Texan who was majority leader until he resigned after being indicted for violating campaign finance laws in his home state.

"House Speaker Hastert and House majority leader Tom DeLay seemed readily inclined to loosen the federal purse strings any time it might help add a few more seats to the Republican majority," he writes.

Then there's this from the NYTimes:
Mr. Greenspan also spelled out his own views about the war in Iraq: he supported the invasion, he says, not because Saddam Hussein might have had weapons of mass destruction, but because Saddam had shown a clear desire to capture the Middle East’s oil fields.
Oil - it was about the oil. And:

“I’m just very disappointed,” he said glumly, as he sat in his living room. “Smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes, less regulation — they had the resources to do it, they had the knowledge to do it, they had the political majorities to do it. And they didn’t.”

In the end, he said, “political control trumped policy, and they achieved neither political control nor policy.”

The war's about oil, Republican governance is "dysfunctional" and the Republicans were too eager to trade principle for power. Political control trumped policy.

And this guy's a REPUBLICAN!

19 comments:

Sherry said...

and this guy is a libertarian republican to boot!

and been around long enough to know the score and has nothing to lose now by finally standing up and saying what he feels.

Scmuck Shitrock said...

He also called Bill "an exceptionally effective president" and said that Hillary is "unquestionably qualified" to be president.

This tells us two things:
1) Both the Clintons are far too friendly with libertarian Republicans, both socially and politically.

2) This morning, the heads of millions of Wingnuts are rotating at 33-1/3 rpm. Perhaps faster.

Don't anyone tell John K. about this. It might kill him and we'd have no one to make fun of.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Not so fast. Greenspan explains remarks on war, oil. He clarified that sentence by saying "that while securing global oil supplies was not the administration's motive, he (Greenspan) had presented the White House with the case for removing Hussein was important for the global economy." Greenspan said removing Saddam "was essential." And of course Greenspan never actually heard Bush/Cheney say we've got to protect the world's oil supply. Also in usual Greenspan doublespeak, where he talks out of both sides of his mouth, "I wasn't arguing for war per se. But to take Hussein out, in my judgement, it was something important for the west to do..."
This one was so easy I just sat here and laid in wait for you lefties to step in it. And step in it you did. LMAO..It's too easy,make it harder. LOL LOL

Schmuck Shitrock said...

Spin them tales, John. Faster! Faster! No matter how much it hurts that your boys in the Kleptocracy are screwing you, spin! Spin! Spin! Spin through the pain!

Sherry said...

fasterfasterFASTER...!

oops, fell down again didn't ya.

Heir to the Throne said...

Looks like SS and sherry are doing the spinning.
Greenspan clarifies Iraq war, oil link

Don't you just hate it when your narrative turns out to be dead wrong.

Anonymous said...

"Looks like SS and sherry are doing the spinning."

Hey, niiice, a veiled Nazi dig! You wingnuts boo-hoo about name calling when it's directed at yinz but can't wait to froth at the mouth when it's your turn to say somehting.

Wimps.

-Shawn

Schmuck Shitrock said...

As the King of Pop said, Mein Heir:
Just spin it, spin it, spin it, spin it
No one cares that you stepped in it
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just spin it, spin it
Just spin it, spin it
Just spin it, spin it
Just spin it, spin it

Anonymous said...

John K. says: And it gets even better. Greenspan praises Limbaugh, OMG, on page 158. He refers to Nixon as the most HONEST president he worked with. And then on 60 minutes, he says Hillary Clinton is competent,but he doesn't care, he is voting Republican. LOL LOL You lefties go about your day stepping in it. And it so much fun to watch LMAO

Sherry said...

greenspan had some rather sharp observations about the current president and some very favorable things to say about ex president clinton AND senator clinton.

spin that.

too bad he waited until NOW to say what needed to be said.
too bad he waited til it became such a deadly mess.

Sherry said...

so you just go on thinking this is some video game to win or lose. some schlocky t.v reality show.

maybe that's how you can face yourself.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

One wonders whether guys like the Ultimate Chickenhawk, Mein Heir, and Master Lie know that their trousers are now down around their ankles and their entire asses are showing. If so, do they enjoy it?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone in their right mind not know that "it's all about oil?"

Without a CONSTANT supply of oil from the Middle East, the world would go into an economic tailspin the likes of which have never been seen. The modern industrial, consumer economy couldn't run for 10 days without oil...maybe 5 days. The loss of that oil would permanently shatter the bright little patina we've built up in the US...that everything is bascially OK and that, within bounds, we'll all just go our merry ways, pumping gas and building our homes in the far flung burbs.

I hate this war and this administration...but, one way or the other, the US (the world, actually) is dependent on the oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and every other ME country, and if they threatened to turn off the spigot, what do you think ANY President would do?

Nobody wants to be the one who is remembered for casting the entire world economy into another depression; it ain't good come election time.

Pilt

Sherry said...

in a way, that is true, but we get oil from other countries. the middle east is only one place also, the middle east relies just as much on selling their oil because it's just abnout the only way they have of making money.

Anonymous said...

Sherry -

True, we get oil from elsewhere, but it's all drying up. And I don't disagree with the fact that they need the money...but the problem is that they aren't the most logical, reasonably run nations in the world...so it's hard to know just how far they'd go to throw the whole kaboodle into chaos....

Pilt

Sherry said...

i don't know about them, but i can see how far we have gone up to today to throw the whole kaboodle into chaos.

Bram Reichbaum said...

So, what's a reasonable number of people to kill to ensure that the global economy doesn't go into a tailspin?

##

The points about whether Greenspan said nice things about Hillary or Bush or Limbaugh are entirely irrelevant. When it comes to politics, he's just a dude, and his opinions are no more or less valuable than any other.

What was significant was that he revealed the obvious, clear truth that the war is about oil. Which is itself is a neutral fact, until you consider that we were told that the war was about 9/11 and spreading democracy.

How you choose to take Greenspan's comments is all relative to how you feel about being lied to when it comes to war and peace.

Anonymous said...

John K says: All you lefties in here whining about Oil. Power your cars and air conditioners with horse or cow poop.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Alan Greenspan isn't the type to write a book based on "feelings." (as in ... 'stand up and say what he feels.')

A "LIBERTARIAN Republican" is much UNLIKE a Bush Republican -- and a Neo-con Republican.

It is great to see the concepts and word "libertarian" get more use and come into better focus among the conversations here, throughout Pittsburgh, and on national TV shows as with Matt L's interview on NBC Today.