Alan Greenspan has been on a tear lately.
First, he warns, correctly, that the Euro can soon replace the US dollar as the reserve currency defacto standard.
It's very important for this country to support fiscal responsibility. That includes cutting out the fat in government spending and not proposing new programs such as Hillary Clinton's $110 BILLION dollar fiasco that is Universal Health Care until we trim out the unnecessary items.
But then after a bit, Greenspan goes way out into left field:
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.
But you have those on the left who will take that "Iraq war is largely about oil" comment and run with it. I know I've seen a ton of people say "See! I told you so!" without reading further then that statement.
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.
Being the head of the Federal Reserve, I can completely see his point. We've spent WAY too much money in the past several years, some legitimate (rebuilding New York and the Pentagon), and some not (earmarks galore on spending bills)
But then Greenspan says something that I'd never thought I'd hear him say.
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."
I'm pretty sure that's what everyone though. I know that's what I thought. My concerns about Saddam's behavior, the intelligence we had at the time, and Russia's warning about an impending terrorist attack by Saddam, sealed it for me.
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.
And THAT'S what those on the left didn't read in the article. They just saw the "largely about oil" and ran with it. It's important to read ALL the facts before you comment. I know I'm guilty of the same thing from time to time. :)
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment