|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject: Greenspan: Iraq war was really for oil |
 |
|
Nice to finally hear a life-long Republican tell it like it is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
Can't wait to see the admin's attempts to discredit Mssr Greenspan for this! Oh, wait, Karl Rove the smearmeister is gone......
| Quote: |
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.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Absolutely. According to the article, the Bush Faction is shocked.
He-he...
What the hell did they think? People would retire and allow their reputations and their legacies to be sullied by association with insane political/military actions?
Everyone conveniently ignores Paul O'Neill's book on Bush and his statements YEARS ago about the Iraq planning being in place by Day 10. O'Neill is also a lifelong Republican, and a loyal one. He just doesn't believe being Republican means being a lying piece of warmongering manure.
Last edited by keane on Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what did O'neil say? Link please
At any rate one of the reasons Saddam was contained was that he was a threat to oil.
No where does it say the war was to steal Iraqs oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| what did O'neil say? Link please |
Already have. Use the search function or google it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
At any rate one of the reasons Saddam was contained was that he was a threat to oil.
|
Would have been nice if they had just come out and said it instead of the smokescreen.
It's treasonous being lied to in such a huge manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| what did O'neil say? Link please |
Already have. Use the search function or google it. |
You mean this link ?
| Quote: |
O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account
Rumsfeld: Idea of a bias toward war 'a total misunderstanding'
WASHINGTON (CNN) --Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday his account of the Bush administration's early discussions about a possible invasion of Iraq has been distorted by a "red meat frenzy."
The controversy began last week when excerpts were released from a book on the administration published Tuesday in which O'Neill suggests Iraq was the focus of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting.
That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets."
"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.
"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."
The idea that Bush "came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.
Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, although it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than using military force. (Full story)
Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.
Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.
But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.
O'Neill, former CEO of aluminum producer Alcoa, sat on the National Security Council during his 23 months as treasury secretary.
He was pushed out of the administration in December 2002 during a dispute over tax cuts and growing budget deficits, and was the primary source for author Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill."
"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country," O'Neill is quoted as saying in the book.
"And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
But Tuesday O'Neill said, "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances."
Several Democratic presidential candidates seized on O'Neill's comments to argue that the Bush administration misled Americans about the drive to war with Iraq, where nearly 500 American troops have been killed since March.
Democratic front-runner Howard Dean used them as a jumping-off point to attack three rivals -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards -- who supported a congressional resolution authorizing Bush to act against Iraq.
"I would remind Iowans and others that a year ago, I stood up against this war and was the only one to do so of the individuals I have mentioned," said Dean, whose opposition to the war helped propel him to the top of the pack.
Bush repeated his position Monday that his administration turned to war with Iraq only after the September 11 attacks changed the way U.S. officials viewed Baghdad's suspected weapons programs.
That Iraq was a concern before that time was evident in July 2001, when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN that Saddam "is on the radar screen for the administration," and senior officials met at the White House two days later to discuss Iraq.
During the same time, Iraq began dispersing aircraft and air defense capabilities in preparation for more aggressive U.S. airstrikes to enforce the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.
A senior administration official told CNN that early Bush administration discussions regarding Iraq reviewed existing policies and plans.
Officials were particularly concerned with enforcement of the "no-fly" zones, where Iraqi air defense forces had been taking potshots at U.S. and British warplanes since late 1998.
Rumsfeld said Tuesday that Iraq was the only place in the world where U.S. forces were being fired upon "with impunity," and "clearing it was something that needed to be addressed."
Richard Perle, a leading advocate of war with Iraq and a member of the independent Defense Advisory Board that advises Rumsfeld, told CNN the review was still under way when the September 11 attacks occurred.
|
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
At any rate one of the reasons Saddam was contained was that he was a threat to oil.
|
Would have been nice if they had just come out and said it instead of the smokescreen.
It's treasonous being lied to in such a huge manner. |
We all know, and they knew, without the lies there would have been no war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
At any rate one of the reasons Saddam was contained was that he was a threat to oil.
|
Would have been nice if they had just come out and said it instead of the smokescreen.
It's treasonous being lied to in such a huge manner. |
Who was closer to the war planning effort Greenspan or Paul Wolfowitz? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THIS COUNTRY. COMMANDER IN CHIEF. THE ONE WITH THE SUITCASE AND THE BUTTON.
Don't try to fudge responsibility Joo. Lies are lies.
Here are the results of Republican lies:
25,000 dead and wounded Americans deserve an apology.
And so do the thousands of killed or maimed Iraqi civilians.
As well the couple of millions of displaced Iraqis inside and outside Iraq.
They all deserve an apology for being lied to by The Idiot and his whoring oil friends.
There's only 1 thing I ever agreed with that Donald Rumsfeld said: "If you break it, you own it."
A fine *beeping* mess that little Yalie idiot got us into. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
="canuckistan"]THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THIS COUNTRY. COMMANDER IN CHIEF. THE ONE WITH THE SUITCASE AND THE BUTTON.
Don't try to fudge responsibility Joo. Lies are lies.
Here are the results of Republican lies: |
| Quote: |
25,000 dead and wounded Americans deserve an apology.
And so do the thousands of killed or maimed Iraqi civilians.
As well the couple of millions of displaced Iraqis inside and outside Iraq.
They all deserve an apology for being lied to by The Idiot and his whoring oil friends. |
I would say the war was for US national security. The mideast was a threat to the US.
Many Iraqi civilians have died. At the same time it also saved many lives.
US policy in Iraq saved the Kurds from being killed off by Saddam
It saved Kuwait from being invaded again.
Those lives don't count?
It is impossible to delegitimatize Saddam Hussein.
9-11 showed that the US was not safe while Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists were free to do as they want.
9-11 may have been the start of world war IV. But that is the enemies fault not ours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Former Fed Chief Attacks Bush on Fiscal Role
| Quote: |
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 � Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir, is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party�s principles on spending and deficits.
In the 500-page book, �The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,� Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush�s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O�Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.
Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. �The Republicans in Congress lost their way,� writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described �libertarian Republican.�
�They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose� in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate. |
note to Rhee: The above was already essentially posted on another thread. What are new today are his comments on the war for oil theme.
| Quote: |
As officials leave the Bush administration, there is no shortage of criticism of this White House: Disenchanted hawks are writing that Mr. Bush has abandoned the certainties of the first term and taken too soft a line on North Korea and Iran; from the other side of the spectrum, former officials are telling tales about how the administration bent rules on torture or domestic spying.
But Mr. Greenspan, now 81, is in a different class, by dint of his fame, his economic authority and his service across party lines. His critiques are likely to have more resonance among Mr. Bush�s base. |
His base? You kidding? It's the pole-sitters like those on this forum claiming, "I'm not a Bushie, but he's done nothing wrong but be a little incompetent" that need to hear this.
| Quote: |
| He praises President Bush for letting the Fed stay independent of political pressure, saying he was scrupulous in not trying to interfere with monetary policy |
Is this the one thing the Bush Faction didn't politicize? Maybe because they knew better than to try?
| Quote: |
| Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained �a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.� |
OH MY GOD!!! Heads just popped all over America. In Red States and Red Homes all over... This is beautiful... I'm misting up....
| Quote: |
It was a presidency marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he writes, but he fondly describes his alliance with two of Mr. Clinton�s Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, in battling financial crises in Latin America and then Asia.
|
This is really too much, Mr. Grenspan... they'll be getting suicidal!! Shhhh!
| Quote: |
| By contrast, Mr. Greenspan paints a picture of Mr. Bush as a man driven more by ideology and the desire to fulfill campaign promises made in 2000, incurious about the effects of his economic policy, and an administration incapable of executing policy. |
Ah, well, we knew that already.
| Quote: |
The White House is clearly not eager to get into a public argument with Mr. Greenspan, whom President Bush reappointed to a fifth term in May 2004. But they pushed back at Mr. Greenspan�s central themes.
�The Republican leadership in the House and Senate kept to our top number,� Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said. Veto threats worked, he said, to keep spending within caps set by the White House. �We�re not going to apologize for standing up the Department of Homeland Security and fighting terror.� |
Ah, but you might want to apologize since that is NOT WHAT YOU WERE DOING.
| Quote: |
Mr. Greenspan described his own emotional journey in dealing with Mr. Bush, from an initial elation about the return of his old friends from the Ford White House � including Mr. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, secretary of defense � to astonishment and then disappointment at how much they had changed.
�I indulged in a bit of fantasy, envisioning this as the government that might have existed had Gerald Ford garnered the extra 1 percent of the vote he�d needed to edge past Jimmy Carter,� Mr. Greenspan writes in his memoir. �I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets.�...
�My friend,� he writes of Mr. O�Neill, �soon found himself to be the odd man out; much to my disappointment, economic policymaking in the Bush administration remained firmly in the hands of the White House staff.�
He was clearly referring to the political team led by Karl Rove at the White House. |
Political wonks calling the economic shots. Beautiful.  But another thing we already knew.
| Quote: |
Though Mr. Greenspan does not admit he made a mistake, he shows remorse about how Republicans jumped on his endorsement of the 2001 tax cuts to push through unconditional cuts without any safeguards against surprises. He recounts how Mr. Rubin and Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, begged him to hold off on an endorsement because of how it would be perceived.
�It turned out that Conrad and Rubin were right,� he acknowledges glumly. He says Republican leaders in Congress made a grievous error in spending whatever it took to ensure a permanent Republican majority.
|
And that, my friends, is treason. Using the treasury of the US, the future of the nation, for one party's political power? It's treason. Read the Constitution of the US: it's right there.
| Quote: |
| Mr. Greenspan has critics as well, and they are likely to weigh in as soon as the book is published. Though he publicly disagreed with Mr. Bush�s supply-side approach to tax cuts, urging Congress to offset the cost with savings elsewhere, he refrained from public criticism that could have shifted the debate. His willingness to criticize now, 18 months after leaving office, may open him to the accusation of failing to speak out when it could have affected policy. |
Indeed.
| Quote: |
Mr. Greenspan writes briefly about what may become a more troubling legacy, the housing bubble, and now the bust, that was fueled by low interest rates and risky mortgages in the last six years.
Some economists argue that Mr. Greenspan deserves considerable blame, because the Fed slashed interest rates to rock-bottom lows...
The Fed was �a prime culprit in creating the crisis,� wrote Steve Forbes, publisher of Forbes magazine, in a just-published commentary. But other economists, including critics of Mr. Greenspan, say the housing bubble resulted from much broader forces, including a dramatic drop of interest rates around the world and an explosion of mortgages that required no money down, no income verification and deceptively low initial teaser rates.
Mr. Greenspan generically defends the Fed�s action, writing: �I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened home ownership are worth the risk. Protection of property rights, so critical to a market economy, requires a critical mass of owners to sustain political support.� |
But those mortgages were not possible without interest rates at essentially zero, which made any money earned on them essentially 100% profit. The article fails to note Greenspan actually encouraged "creative" mortgages. So, yes, blame belongs at his feet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
="canuckistan"]THE BUCK STOPS WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THIS COUNTRY. COMMANDER IN CHIEF. THE ONE WITH THE SUITCASE AND THE BUTTON.
Don't try to fudge responsibility Joo. Lies are lies.
Here are the results of Republican lies: |
| Quote: |
25,000 dead and wounded Americans deserve an apology.
And so do the thousands of killed or maimed Iraqi civilians.
As well the couple of millions of displaced Iraqis inside and outside Iraq.
They all deserve an apology for being lied to by The Idiot and his whoring oil friends. |
I would say the war was for US national security. The mideast was a threat to the US.
Many Iraqi civilians have died. At the same time it also saved many lives.
US policy in Iraq saved the Kurds from being killed off by Saddam
It saved Kuwait from being invaded again.
Those lives don't count?
It is impossible to delegitimatize Saddam Hussein.
9-11 showed that the US was not safe while Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists were free to do as they want.
9-11 may have been the start of world war IV. But that is the enemies fault not ours. |
Joo, you need to realise when you've been told. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just make your charge.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| what did O'neil say? Link please |
Already have. Use the search function or google it. |
You are SO intellectually lazy, it is unbelievable. Thank you Joo for finding the article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, you've gotta be some Republican PR wonk employed to spout the party line on websites. Really. Very deep. It doesn't work on us anymore, we know the truth. And your continued defense of the indefensible has become sadly maudlin--much like the current presidency (tears and all).
Critical thinking skills, moral compass, ethical concerns no longer apparent. Following blindly--we don't progress like this.
You're not a stupid guy J.....when did that tragedy occur?
The good news is you can recover your conscience, even as a Republican....just stop defending The Idiot and his oil friends.
He's not smart enough or worth it in the end....as many of his compatriots are discovering.
Last edited by canuckistan on Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
