Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Greenspan Book Criticizes Bush And Republicans

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Joeychgo

Greenspan Book Criticizes Bush And Republicans

Wall Street Journal

A few quotes.... I cant wait to read the book...

Quote:

In "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes both congressional Republicans and President George W. Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline.

Quote:

Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Quote:

Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O'Neill as treasury secretary -- both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers -- he "indulged in a bit of fantasy" that this would be the government that would have resulted if Mr. Ford hadn't lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the "political operation was far more dominant" than in Mr. Ford's. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes.

A book quote from a British publication:

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.

Quoted by the Washington Post

Quote:

When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."

Quote:

He says, "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large, anticipated federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office." So Bush's goals "were no longer entirely appropriate. He continued to pursue his presidential campaign promises nonetheless."

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Well nobody ever accused George Bush of facing the facts or acting on them.
What do you expect from someone who believes in miracles.

Posted by: fossten

LOL Greenspan may be a wizard on the numbers, but he's an imbecile on political doctrine.

First he says he wishes Bush had pursued fiscal discipline, which he's right about, but then he criticizes the tax cuts???? Absurd. Fiscal discipline INCLUDES reducing taxes. And his criticism is false as we now know because of the RECORD tax revenue coming in BECAUSE OF THE TAX CUTS.

Joey, I'm sure you will enjoy the book because it feeds your hungry Bush Derangement Syndrome. Have fun!

Posted by: fossten

Greenspan says you're wrong, Joey...

Alan Greenspan: I Never Said Iraq War Was About Oil
By Matthew Sheffield | September 17, 2007 - 12:41 ET

It's fitting that now that he's left his post as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan's words are being as closely scrutinized as they were back in his days at the Fed. Not carefully enough, though, it seems.

Over the weekend, a media firestorm errupted after the Washington Post printed a news article claiming that in his memoirs, Greenspan said the ouster of the Saddam Hussein government was just about oil.

Unfortunately for the liberal press and blogosphere, Greenspan did not say what was attributed to him. After the news broke, Greenspan called up the Post to say he'd been quoted out of context:

Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

Posted by: Joeychgo

AH, so alan greenspan is a bush hater too now?

ROFL!

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

AH, so alan greenspan is a bush hater too now?

ROFL!

Actually, your appropriate response would be, "oops."

See my post above yours.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Nothing to oops, not my mistake. From what I see, he is still not a big Bush fan.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

From what I see, he is still not a big Bush fan.

I don't get that anywhere...
Please explain

Posted by: Joeychgo

already did in first post.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

already did in first post.

...and Greenspan said that article misquoted him. He explained what he ment. Therefore, no disagreement with Bush on the war...
So where are you getting disagreement

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

...and Greenspan said that article misquoted him. He explained what he ment. Therefore, no disagreement with Bush on the war...
So where are you getting disagreement

Joey doesn't ever change his opinion, especially when it fits his BDS template.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

Gee Joey,

I would say that based on this line, Greenspan thinks Bush is a hero. Saving the world from a maniacal killer set on controlling 1/3 of the world oil supplies makes Bush one of the greatest visionaries this world has ever known. Of course, it will take 50 years for the world to rewrite the Bush Presidency to properly reflect his vision.

The MonsterMark dictionary...
Pre-emption: Saving the world without the world even knowing it.

Hopefully my kids will read some of those great passages about Bush to me over my gravestone in 50 years.

Can't wait to read the rest of the book.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Nothing to oops, not my mistake. From what I see, he is still not a big Bush fan.

Ahhh,

But don't you gents see how this works.

The liberal media always plays up the BIG LIE when it is first covered, on every front page.

Greenspan hates Bush.

Bush war for Oil.

Those are the headlines.

And that's what the sheeple hear and what they will parrot going forward.

Of course, the retraction comes but the press doesn't cover it and if they do print it, it comes in the form of one paragragh on page 16.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Wall Street Journal is Liberal Media?

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Wall Street Journal is Liberal Media?

The fact is they are reporting a blatant distortion of Greenspan. Enough of a distortion that he felt the need to correct the record...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...601287_pf.html

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.

Greenspan's reference in "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" to what he calls the "politically inconvenient" fact that the war was "largely about oil" was first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday and has proved controversial.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took issue with Greenspan on ABC's "This Week" yesterday. "I wasn't here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war," Gates said. But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true."

Critics of the administration have often argued that while Bush cited Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and despotic rule as reasons for the invasion, he was also motivated by a desire to gain access to Iraq's vast oil reserves. Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

Though Greenspan's book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president's lack of fiscal discipline and the "dysfunctional government" he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. "They're not surprised by my conclusions," he said.

As for Iraq, Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

His main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

"No, no, no," he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will."

Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

So Joey,

You posted this thread because you were gleeful that Greenspan was a Bush basher of high esteem.

Looking at this latest quote, it once again confirms that Greenspan feels Bush did what was right and necessary, not what was ill-conceived and convenient.

BUSH is once again exonerated by one if his supposed criticizers.

BTW,

Oil is at $81.01 and the world is basically at peace (except for Iraq and Afganistan) and no major attacks have been made on the world's oil infrastructure. Wait till that happens.

$200 oil is on its way. Get ready to park the Mark and start walking my friend.

Posted by: Joeychgo

I read alot more then just about the war. So, I wouldnt say he was exonorated whatsoever. Even GW himself felt criticized by greenspan. "The president was a bit surprised by some of the criticism in the book," said White House press secretary Dana Perino.

BTW - oil is at its highest ever. Not something I would be bragging about. The republicans had 6 years in control, and oil did nothing but go up.

I feel sorry for whoever the next president is. They will have alot of work to do day one to straighten out this country. Right now, I have no real clue who that is going to be or who im going to vote for.

Posted by: shagdrum

How can you possible mischaracterize a story about distortion of Greenspans words by the media, into Anti-Bush.

The suprise by Bush to the original article only supports the idea that the media distorted the facts here...

And where do you get off trying to blame republicans for gas prices?! They have no control over the market. They can't drill due to special interests and the main player in oil prices are the OPEC countries. Trying to blame the republicans for oil prices is like me blaming you for the Holocaust.

I tried to give you the benifit of the doubt here, but the whole Bush Derangement Syndrome is the only rational explanation here...

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

AH, so alan greenspan is a bush hater too now?

ROFL!

No Joey, you are. How you can't wait to jump on the left-wing propaganda band wagon by posting only parts of Greenspan's book that are critical towards President Bush speak for your bias. Greenspan didn't say anything, we don't already know, particularly right-wing conservatives. For example, Americans in general are disappointed with out-of-control spending--we don't need Greenspan to elaborate.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I feel sorry for whoever the next president is. They will have alot of work to do day one to straighten out this country. Right now, I have no real clue who that is going to be or who im going to vote for.

Hmmm.

The Dems have had control of the Senate and House for 9 months now. What do they have to show for it? Oh yeah, they formed a couple dozen investigative committees to look into Bush admin scandals and they demeaned a four-star general and the military that is sworn to protect us. They have an approval rating of less than 20%. Let's give them a Dem President and they'll really fix things.

Let's see....
~ They won't drill for more oil on land that we already own.

~ They won't build more refineries so we can increase our capacity.

~ They keep on intruding on private business, making the cost of doing business in the US more expensive, thereby forcing jobs to go elsewhere.

~ They keep on redistributiong wealth (higher taxes) from those that create it to give to those who do nothing but slurp it up.

~ They want to now mandate that our health care become equally crappy across the board and have people that have health care pay for the health care of those that won't work, even though we already have that. That program is called Medicaid. Duh>

~ They continue to espose the decline of morals in this country. Gay sex. Gender reorientation. Unwed mothers. Rap, Hollywood, etc.

~ They won't touch Social Security and continue to steal from the funds already there.

~ They want to encourage mass immigration to bolster their voting ranks, thus giving them more power.

~ As a part of immigration, they want (are) to turn us into a bi or tri-lingual nation with no core. Just a bunch of china towns, mexican villages, little havanas and such, scattered here and there without any push to integrate these people into our way of life.

~ They want to surrender our obligation to keep peace in the world.

~ They want to gut the military so our enemies become emboldened to take us on.

Ya, I can't wait for the Democrats to solve our problems.

~ We need a CONSERVATIVE President (Bush was not conservative....enough) to solve our problems along with a CONSERVATIVE Congress (not RINOs).

~ We need to cut spending everywhere across the board. Every single program.

~ We need to implement a Social Security program that allows for a private savings program, giving people more control of their OWN money.

~ We need to drill for oil NOW. Build 6 refineries NOW. Incentify business to invest in solar and wind.

~ We need to stop the madness that is ethanol. NOW. It is destroying the world's ability to feed itself.

~ We need to provide jobs to people that need it and compensate them for that work instead of having them sit on their asses and collect the money.

~ We need to secure our borders now, with a fence in the south to stop unfetterred access.

~ We need to attack the terrorists wherever they are in the world so we can sleep at night knowing our way of life won't be forever changed in an instant (BOOOM).

~ We need to allow people to keep more of their money (yes, their money, not the governments) so both mom and dad don't have to work, thereby strengthening the family structure.

The list goes on and on.

I have no faith in the Democrats to do any of this. If you do, you have subjected this country to failure.

Posted by: fossten

Well, Joey, that's four out of four posters on this thread that are concerned about your BDS. Frankly, you are a parody of yourself. I couldn't FAKE BDS better than you are displaying it.

We all are concerned for your mental health and think it's time for an intervention. Seek help. The first step toward recovery is admitting you have a problem. Otherwise you are in denial.

Posted by: Joeychgo

I wont copy the post Monstermark - but this is to you.

I have one simple answer to all of that.

The republicans had 6 years with control of congress and the white house. How come they couldnt enact any of that? How come we dont have more refinaries or oil drilling on our own soil? Implementation of a Social Security program that allows for a private savings program was one of GW's campaign promises. What happened there?

I agree with you on most of those points bryan. (the things we need to do) I really do. We need to drill for alot of oil, we need to develop alternative sources like solar and wind, we need to secure our borders, etc etc.

You guys dont get it. I agree with many of the same things you do. I just think GW had the chances to do many things and screwed most of them up.

One thing Greenspan said really rang true for me...

Quote:

When GW was elected and started selecting his cabinet, I felt he was putting together a good team. Even though I was not impressed with GW, I felt he was surrounding himself with people who knew how to do things. Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, et al.

Even though I wasnt impressed with GW back then, I felt they could keep him on the right path. Little did I know that they would turn out to be what they have turned into. (With the exception of Powell, who resigned)

Ive said it over and over. Im not a liberal democrat. My views lean differently depending on the subject. Im the guy who thinks we should dump 100k MORE troops into Iraq. But im also the guy who thinks we should be doing something to help get health care to our entire population.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

The republicans had 6 years with control of congress and the white house. How come they couldnt enact any of that? How come we dont have more refinaries or oil drilling on our own soil? Implementation of a Social Security program that allows for a private savings program was one of GW's campaign promises. What happened there?

One of the answers only takes one word:

MEDIA

The other answer requires one to look at the makeup of the Senate and the Congress (RINOs hidden in our midst), and I admit, the President himself.

Opps. Got to run. I'll pontificate later.

Posted by: shagdrum

After reading Greenspans corrections to the record, it is clear that he is no more "anti-Bush" then Fossten, or myself. While I don't wanna put words in peoples mouths, I am pretty sure that Fossten, like myself, agrees with Greenspan that the Republicans spending orgy in Washington allowed by Bush is very irresponsible.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

After reading Greenspans corrections to the record, it is clear that he is no more "anti-Bush" then Fossten, or myself. While I don't wanna put words in peoples mouths, I am pretty sure that Fossten, like myself, agrees with Greenspan that the Republicans spending orgy in Washington allowed by Bush is very irresponsible.

You are correct sir.

Posted by: Marcus

The damn book's out now, so has anyone actually looked up the passage to put it in proper its context? Is it just an isolated sentence? I don't know. But what I do know is that “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil" sounds pretty unequivocal to me. How else can it be read? The fact that he agrees with the war is irrelevant.

Unless there is more to the quote than was printed, it sounds like Alan's backpedaling big time now.

Posted by: fossten

First of all, the war is a result of a violation of 17 UN Sanctions. But let's take Greenspan's opinion as correct for the sake of the argument, shall we? Greenspan correctly said the war was about oil, not FOR oil. There's a difference. Keeping the Middle East stable will almost always be either about oil or our ally Israel. Let's take the oil as an example. If the Middle East destabilizes, the world is affected by shortages and/or price spikes.

On the other hand, if we went to Iraq to "steal their oil" as all the fringe lefty "no blood for oil" wackos screech all the time, that begs the question "Why didn't we just take Kuwait's oil, or UAE's oil, or Saudi's oil? After all, we're already there, it would be a lot easier. Furthermore, if we went to Iraq to steal their oil, why aren't oil prices falling?"

Posted by: Joeychgo

I dont think anyone meant to imply 'steal' the oil. To me, I took it as meaning that aside from any other reasons for war, the ultimate reason was to keep the oil available the the markets.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I dont think anyone meant to imply 'steal' the oil. To me, I took it as meaning that aside from any other reasons for war, the ultimate reason was to keep the oil available the the markets.

Do you think that's a valid reason? Because Greenspan apparently does. And if so, then how do you qualify Greenspan saying it as criticism?

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdum

How can you possible mischaracterize a story about distortion of Greenspans words by the media, into Anti-Bush.

The suprise by Bush to the original article only supports the idea that the media distorted the facts here...

Published: September 18, 2007 6:00 a.m.

Bush camp rebuffs Greenspan

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – President Bush was surprised by the criticism leveled against him and his administration by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in his new book [NOT the "Media"], the White House said Monday.

Greenspan accused Bush of not responsibly handling the nation’s spending and racking up big budget deficits, saying he and Congress’ former GOP leaders abandoned the party’s conservative principles favoring small government.

“My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,” Greenspan wrote in “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” released Monday.

White House press secretary Dana Perino defended Bush’s fiscal policies and said that veto threats from the president were enough to keep spending from spiraling too high. Under Bush, government spending for the fight against terrorism increased, and Perino said the Bush administration doesn’t apologize for acting on behalf of “the safety and security of the American people.”

At the same time, government revenues declined because of a string of tax cuts, which Greenspan also criticizes in his book.

Large projected surpluses were the basis for Bush’s $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut approved in the summer of 2001. Those surpluses never materialized, and have since turned into record deficits, so Greenspan wrote that the tax-cut goal was “no longer entirely appropriate.”

Perino brought this up as one of the more perplexing parts of the book for the White House.

“The president was a bit surprised by some of the criticism in the book,” she said. “Remember in late 2000, we were headed into a recession and tax cuts were the prescribed remedy. And that has borne out to be one of the best decisions we made in order to keep the economy growing like it is.”

Greenspan gave a major boost to Bush’s tax-cut plan in testimony before Congress in 2001, arguing then that a tax cut could help the economy deal with sagging growth. A recession that began in March 2001 ended that November. In his book, he says that testimony had been a mistake.

Perino also disputed Greenspan’s line about the Iraq war: “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.”

Bottom line: Greenspan was critical of BuSh AND the GOP-led congress IN HIS BOOK, and the little shrub didn't like it. The "MEDIA" had nothing to do about BuSh's perception of Greenspan's statements.

WRT the "oil" argument, lets be real. There were many *reasons* to invade Iraq, some real, some fabricated. But to pretend that OIL was absolutely NOT a factor whatsoever is an excersize of denial, or BKAS (BuSh Kiss A$$ Syndrome).

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Published: September 18, 2007 6:00 a.m.

Bush camp rebuffs Greenspan

Associated Press

At the same time, government revenues declined because of a string of tax cuts, which Greenspan also criticizes in his book.

Large projected surpluses were the basis for Bush’s $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut approved in the summer of 2001. Those surpluses never materialized, and have since turned into record deficits, so Greenspan wrote that the tax-cut goal was “no longer entirely appropriate.”

Ahh...Aren't government tax revenues up (in fact at record highs) and the deficit is falling.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

The book was just released that day, the white house didn't have time to respond to the book, as the author here wants to imply. They were responding to the article.

Quote:

Greenspan accused Bush of not responsibly handling the nation’s spending and racking up big budget deficits, saying he and Congress’ former GOP leaders abandoned the party’s conservative principles favoring small government.

“My biggest frustration remained the president’s unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending,” Greenspan wrote in “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” released Monday.

Most every conservative criticizes Bush on this one, and when Greenspan clarified his statements, he said he did. This has already been discussed in this thread.

Quote:

At the same time, government revenues declined because of a string of tax cuts, which Greenspan also criticizes in his book.

This is an out and out lie! Government revenues did decline when Bush first took office, but they are in know way due to the tax cuts. The cuts hadn't even taken effect yet!! You can't logically attach the decline to the cuts in anyway. This is just the reporters ignorance and bias showing through. He or she doesn't have any clue about the economy, or the fact that every time tax cuts are tried, government revenues increase as a result, as has turned out to be the case. The author at this point has no credibility, and you would be a fool to by any claim not backed up by a direct quote from the book.

Quote:

Large projected surpluses were the basis for Bush’s $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut approved in the summer of 2001. Those surpluses never materialized, and have since turned into record deficits, so Greenspan wrote that the tax-cut goal was “no longer entirely appropriate.”

Those "projected surpluses" may have been used to sell the tax cut, but they weren't the basis for it. The surplused were a result of Clinton "cooking the books", and were never real anyway. This, again, shows the economic ignorance of the author and anyone buying their article here. tax cuts don't decrease revenue! This is a proven fact! The revenue went up due to the tax cuts.
The author further goes to take 4 words of Greenspans out of context to support his claim. Greenspan is already on record approving the tax cuts, and a "conservative fiscal policy", part of which is tax cuts. Need to see where they took this quote from to put it in context. Either way, the quote doesn't rally against the cuts.

Quote:

Greenspan gave a major boost to Bush’s tax-cut plan in testimony before Congress in 2001, arguing then that a tax cut could help the economy deal with sagging growth. A recession that began in March 2001 ended that November. In his book, he says that testimony had been a mistake.

Doubt that. No direct quote from Greenspan here. Most likely taken out of context, or flat out lie on the part of the author

Quote:

Perino also disputed Greenspan’s line about the Iraq war: “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.”

Yep. Greenspan tried to sell Bush on Iraq due to oil, and Bush rejected it. No one said the war wasn't about oil. Any involvement in that part of the world is gonna be due to oil and/or Israel.

Quote:

Bottom line: Greenspan was critical of BuSh AND the GOP-led congress IN HIS BOOK, and the little shrub didn't like it. The "MEDIA" had nothing to do about BuSh's perception of Greenspan's statements.

WRONG! As usual, Johnny, you refuse to see the forest thru the trees unless it fits your worldview. Bush is responding to the articles. The only criticizm of Bush that can be pinned on Greenspan is Bush allowing the spending. Everything else is distortion by the media.

Quote:

You still can't prove that there were any fabricated reasons for going into Iraq. The fact that we went there at all proves that the war is ultimatly about oil.

Posted by: fossten

Nice riposte there Shag, but remember...Johnny is the level of BDS that Joey merely aspires to.

Don't feed the trolls.

|| Johnny
\/

Posted by: shagdrum

Don't be so hard on Joey. While he has some strong bias (as every single one of us does on this forum), he at least makes an effort to try and look past them a good deal of the time.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Don't be so hard on Joey. While he has some strong bias (as every single one of us does on this forum), he at least makes an effort to try and look past them a good deal of the time.

Thank you for noticing.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Thank you for noticing.

Wouldn't bother if I didn't think you could be saved from your BDS.

We pick because we care.