Alan Greenspan attacks Bush on economy 5 replies, 17431 views

Racer X
9/15/2007 4:34:00 PM
Last Updated: Saturday, 15 September 2007, 15:29 GMT 16:29 UK



Greenspan attacks Bush on economy

Mr Greenspan served under six US presidents

The former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan says Mr Bush ignored his advice to veto "out-of-control" bills that sent the US deeper into deficit.

And Mr Bush's Republicans deserved to lose control of Congress in last year's elections, he charges.

Mr Greenspan, 81, stepped down last year after nearly 19 years in the post.

In The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, Mr Greenspan - who has described himself as a "lifelong libertarian Republican" - spares no criticism of the Republican party.

He writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending at the time Republicans controlled Congress.

President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake", he said.

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he says of the Bush administration.

And he charges that Republicans in Congress "swapped principle for power" and "ended up with neither".

"They deserved to lose."

Mr Greenspan retired in early 2006 after serving under six US presidents - either as Federal Reserve chairman or adviser.

He now runs a private consulting company - and is an honorary adviser to the UK government.

boog
9/15/2007 4:39:00 PM
INTERESTING
lottery hypnosis
9/15/2007 5:35:00 PM
.....so how many legs is matt's defense of his buddy george bush left standing on?

the economy? - fucked it up

foreign policy? - fucked it up

domestic response? well, between katrina, and the fact that the war in iraq has seeded and spawned new terrorists on a scale never before seen, i think we can say he fucked that up to

health care? - blocked stem cell research, universal coverage, etc. [ i.e. fucked it up ]

education? derrrr......

so sad. and now matt's playing 'johnny got your gun', and even if he gets both his legs blown off, he'll defend the scumabag from texas with his dying breath, just like his daddy probably still has a framed portrait of nixon hanging on his wall.
calliope farm
9/16/2007 5:46:00 PM
Why can't these people ever speak out at the time, when it might actually have made a difference? Instead, they write these tell-all books afterwards, where they say that all these things that the oposition was saying - and that they were lieing about, denying, and helping to cover up - was true. It kind of makes them nothing more than worthless cowards trying to shamelessly profit off the truth they were previously hiding, now that they know the jig's up.
sup sluts
9/16/2007 5:53:00 PM
greenspan is god, I'm glad to hear he's talkin shit
white trash dirt bag
9/16/2007 9:38:00 PM
like i said.......













September 16, 2007

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

Graham Paterson

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.

"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.

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.







Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m

Peter Beaumont and Joanna Walters in New York
Sunday September 16, 2007
The Observer

The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serving four presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets.In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'







Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m

Peter Beaumont and Joanna Walters in New York
Sunday September 16, 2007
The Observer

The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.

Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serving four presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets.

In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

In The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is also crystal clear on his opinion of his last two bosses, harshly criticising George W Bush for 'abandoning fiscal constraint' and praising Bill Clinton's anti-deficit policies during the Nineties as 'an act of political courage'.

He also speaks of Clinton's sharp and 'curious' mind, and 'old-fashioned' caution about the dangers of debt.Greenspan's damning comments about the war come as a survey of Iraqis, which was released last week, claims that up to 1.2 million people may have died because of the conflict in Iraq - lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels.

More than one million deaths were already being suggested by anti-war campaigners, but such high counts have consistently been rejected by US and UK officials.

The estimates, extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults around the country, were collected by a British polling agency, ORB, which asked a random selection of Iraqis how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather than from natural causes.

Previous estimates gave a range b