Now that Al is out of the mix, he's worried about his "legacy" and has the advantage of faded memories and the MSM on his side with the Bush critique.

He's not had to account to anyone during his tenure, so it's surprising how much he's dishing out. The late '90's stock bubble can be laid at his door step.

Poor Dems ... now the only valid "criticism" of the Bush Administration that they can pin on Greenspan is his disdain for Bush's out-of-control spending policies.

Funny, but I just can't see the Dems rallying now, "Yeah, you go Alan! We demand more spending bill vetoes from the Bush Administration!!"

Oh well, I guess it was fun while it lasted.

I knew that there had to be more to it than "War for Oil! War for Oil!"

Whenever I'm informed that the Iraq war was a "war for oil", I opine that if any President were to conduct any Middle East policy without considering the impact on our oil needs, that President would be either incompetent or negligent, and i just can't decide which.

That usually shuts 'em up. Reality and all that.

I picture a drooling alan greenspan sitting at his word processor periodically mailing an express package of crabcakes into his Depends undergarments.

Dear Mr. Greenspan.

Please. Shut. Your. Piehole.

Thank you.

Poor lefties. They have to spin, lie, take out of context, and do anything else they can to prop themselves up.

An agenda and party and belief system that needs that much lying is one you know is dead WRONG. Period. End of story.

Baghdad barney - where ya at?

barney the G-man was the first and only one of the resident loonbats who lept on Greenspan's quote with full force.

Of course he and the vast majority of the left-wing blogs didn't take into account, or didn't care to, the quote while apparently was spoken by him was selected for maximum effect by who? The NYT.

Asshats, one and all.

Barney's incompetence is about to reach legendary status.

It's not surprising that the story was simply another distortion from the left. Besides, I thought that the left considered Greenspan a 'partisan hack' anyway ?

This is what I said yesterday.

Jim, the opinion is that the media grossly and intentionally misrepresented Greenspan's comments.

Do learn to read.

"mailing an express package of crabcakes into his Depends undergarments"

lolololol

As Larry would say, "now that's funny, I don't care who ya are"

Jim:

Just to be clear here - you guys are of the opinion that oil played no major part in Bush's decision to invade Iraq?

As SPQW related, "do learn to read."

Major? No. A consideration, yes but not because his "cronies" are getting rich.

It has to do with a little thing thing many on the right and left haven't a clue about.

The U.S. and it's Navy has been and will continue to be the only major industrialized/western country able and willing to ensure the steady and reliable flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz.

That is accomplished via having a 24/7/365 days a year presence in or just outside the Gulf.

And it's been that way since the days of Jimmah the Dhimmy.

You know all the huffing and puffing by you whiny scaredy cats about recent movement into the Gulf of, OMG, two, count'em, two A/C carriers. Oh my frickin' GOD, we're going to war with Iran.

Pffft!!! you idiots are clueless about the Gulf and Navel deployments. Two carriers ops occurs on average of two times year regardless of what Ademajihadist spews in his latest communique from Tehran and regardless whether Saddam was in power or doing his "swing thing" he so much deserved.

You idiots want to cut military spending? You wanna "bring the troops" home? You wanna stable and cheaper flow of oil while waiting for the free market to turn out a cost effective alternitive?

Good, then start petitioning all the other countries, which include most of the west and Asia, to "relieve us of duty" in the Gulf. Demand THEY do the job the U.S. Navy has provided for 3 decades for FREE.

"til then Jim restrict yourself to commenting on something you know. Which effectively puts you out of the "Wizbang commenting business."

Jim, you must have not noticed this was one of my posts and you left a message by mistake after I already banned you.

That's OK buddy, I deleted it for you.

Well shit fire Paul - it's so much fun watching Jim wither under the machine gun-like fire of logic and knowledge.

SPOILSPORT!

Oil is vital for any developed nation and any developing nation. That is true. Having Iraq's oil brought back into the world market without sanctions and without a Stalin-wannabe dictator in charge of Iraq is also important, because it dilutes the influence of other oil producing nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuala, etc. And it removes its use as a tool of said Stalin-wannabe.

An economist focusing on that economic reality isn't particularly shocking.

Those darn lefties! How dare they take a sentence in Greenspan's autobiography at face value?!

I should point out that assessing the economic pros and cons of a war are part of an economic adviser's job.

--|PW|--

A few other quotes for you, that just might make you think otherwise.

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

He continues

"I do know that the future of the Middle East is a most important consideration in any long term energy forecast"

And he continues furthe

"Whatever their publicised angst over Saddam Hussein's WMDs, American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbours a resource indispensble for the functioning of the world economy"

Now apparently, Richard Gates, Bush's Defence Secretary (makes him sound like a chastity belt!) stated and I quote " I have a lot of respect for Mr Greenspan....but I really think it's about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop WMDs. It's about aggressive dictators"

What would you surmise from that then? Moreover, it appears to a lot of people here in Britain, where you will find real conservatives, that the GOP has lost it's way and that the hawks have shown their true colours, as they appear more interested in power and oil, than they are about peace in the Middle East.

Another observation if I may add. Six years ago, it is highly probable that if you mentioned the Middle East to your average American, they would have had no idea as to where it was on a map, let alone have an idea as to it's politics or it's history!

Cool, Paul! Way to step up.

Oh, and I had no idea that you banned me. I have no idea what the banning is for. I do remember you saying something in another article, about possibly banning me if I don't answer one of your questions? I posted again, asking what question you meant, and that I'd be happy to answer it. Is that what this is about?

You know, whatever; your privilege. Just want to be clear on what's going on.

Hooson:

"At least one retailer is offering a hefty 30% discount on Greenspan's book on it's first day out. And I've seen a free offer for Ann Coulter's latest book from Human Events. Some folks in business just seem to know a product's real worth it seems."

Well, golly-gee-whiz Hooson, a 30% discount? How shocking!

When was the last time you bought a book at the SMRP? They are all marked down at some level right off the presses.

Coulter's latest book for free? The hell you say! Well... maybe that has something to do with it being in print for a few months AND she pretty much works for them, if not officially, by similar agendas and that is why it's being offered for free.

>Oh, and I had no idea that you banned me. I have no idea what the banning is for.

I'm not surprised Jim... reading comprehension never has been one of your long suits.

Good by Jim.

OK Paul.

Just so I understand:

1) You tell me you have banned me.

2) I've asked you why you've banned me, and offered to clear up any reason why you've banned me.

3) You are apparently refusing to answer the quite reasonable question of "why have you banned me?"

The MSM has officially jumped the shark.

"Spun" is now a synonym for "rewritten."

OK Paul.

Just so I understand:

1) You tell me you have banned me.

Don't play the fool card Jim. I warned you three times. You acknowledged the warnings. If you really don;t remember, I suggest you learn to use the search tool.

Now go... You're banned from my posts.. keep it up and I'll ban you from the whole site.

Slight correction Jim.

You where warned twice but several others on the thread where warned as well for the same thing.

So your claim of ignorance only goes so far.

Hooson.... wow, thousands of books!

So...

A simple "I've never bought a book at full price" would have been sufficient, but as I've noted before you always have to lavish us with more, much more than we need to hear and understand your point.

And to pre-empt the childish rant you launched into last time I noted this habit of your ("I bet I'm older than you" or something similar) do the math I worked at FoMoCo for 10 years after which spent 20 years in the Navy and have been retired for 7 years.

Do the math asshat (or should that read young-assed whipy-snapper?) starting with the normal age one enters the workforce

marc don't get too impressed by Hooson's claim of owning thousands of books...

Comic books don't count.

BTW buh bye Hooson

For crap's sake, Paul.

I am telling you I have no idea what I was banned for.

Several days ago, on some completely separate article ,*you* claimed I hadn't answered one of your questions. Right after you said that, I *asked* you what specific question of yours I hadn't answered, and offered to answer it right there.

You gave me no answer.

So I think you made a mistake and lumped me in with someone else. But hey, ask me that question now, since it angers you so much you'll bring it up days later.

I'm here to discuss and argue things fairly. Isn't that what you're interested in too?

Left gatekeepers propagated the myth the war was bout oil. The truth is zionists like Greenspan have dragged the West into The Middle East conflict on Israel's side, on the back of a series of false flag terror attacks in the West blamed on 'Muslim Terror'. Thats the truth. Thats why you don't hear it.

Right, Sam. Greenspan used his mystical Jew powers to reach back in time and make Bush want to invade Iraq before he was elected.

Man.