We have all heard that Greenspan said the war was about oil, but what he really said is that he believed we should attack Iraq to protect the world's oil supply. Greenspans criticisms of Bush revolved around him not vetoing spending bills and allowing the Democrat controlled congress to run wild with the budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html

Spidey, Spidey, Spidey.......

If you could please, if just for one moment, pull your head out of Bush's rectum.....

Do you(and a few others on here) TRULY look at EVERYTHING as a "left-wing conspiracy"? Is that your catch-all phrase you repeat mantra-like when your boy Bush looks bad? The details are laid out in Greenspan's book. He said Bush, Cheney, and the "inner circle" were irresponsible spenders---They did most of their damage BEFORE the elections of 2006--when your cherished Republicans were in charge of both the House AND Senate. Your "theory" doesn't even begin to fly. Your post should be deleted for sheer fantasy. But I won't delete--I'll let your comments stand--we can all use a good laugh.

Oh, by the way....

You must have been REALLY disillusioned to hear Greenspan praise Former President Bill Clinton as "the most fiscally responsible President in the last 30 years". If you disagree with that, might I suggest you take it up with Mr. Greenspan himself. He DID say it, after all. Unless he "misquoted himself", which is another excuse Republicans with their hands in the cookie jar love to use(see Craig,Larry ).

Your are so 'RIGHT' SPIDER!!!

When will the left get it?!!?!

It will NEVER BE 'RIGHT'!!!


And that my friend is a good thing!!!

... if all of US citizens were 'RIGHT',

... THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD BE 'LEFT' BEING WRONG!!!

Thank life for 'left-wrong' free thinking US citizens

You two are defending the Left's right to lie about the statements of others. This has nothing to do with Bush, this has to do with the fact that lies were published and characterized as the statements of Alan Greenspan. You guys are so full of hate for Bush, that you can't take a breath and criticize the people who took Greenspan out of context to push their (and your) agenda.

Knoxman,

I believe that everyone is capable of doing right and wrong. I don't believe that Clinton screwed up everything he touched, so Greenspan complimenting him doesn't bother me. The question is why does anyone complimenting Bush bother you guys so much? And heck, you guys seem to be disturbed by someone correcting a lie that was published about Bush.

The wonderful thing about a book is you can take a phrase or two out of context and use to reinforce about any point you want to make. I haven't read Greenspan's Book and probably won't but I suggest that those who wish to comment on it read the whole thing and draw their own conclussions from what he said.

Left Wing Conspiracy oh yes definately yes Right Wing Conspiracy probably not, very difficult to get people from the right side of the aisle to agree on anything

The paper said that the Fed is probably going to lower the prime rate to help the housing market, that alone will probably cause Davinci to have a spasm

One parting shot, you don't have to have a majority in Congress to spend bunches of money. Just ask Harry Bird, D W.Va, the porkingest piker to ever come along. He delivers the pork to W.Va. regardless of who has a majority.

So, Spider, are you saying Greenspan lied? And you know this to be fact, so you've taken it upon yourself to inform the world of Greenspan's lie? The people who took Greenspan out of context? Thank you, Spidercmb, for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt about my "misquoting myself" phrase that the Radical right uses when they're wrong. I base my comments on interviews Greenspan himself did in promotion of his book.

Oh, by the way, I'll be more than happy to compliment Bush on the good things he does....that is, if he ever does any good things.

Oh, Forge, no argument about Harry Bird. We've always had pork lovers in Tenn. But Spider is referring to the national budget, as opposed to a state budget.

The wonderful thing about a great carreer is the reputation to back it up!

18 1/2 years of it make it even better!!!

Voil, you are on a roll buddy!!!

HUBA,,, thanks knox!!

I got some bad news for you all…………..

There all lying to you, the Right, The Left……..

Not one person in Washington, the media or in you’re state capital is telling you the truth about anything.

Uncle Sam needs to bend over so we can all kiss his ass goodbye…….

Well, I don't tell lies about Greenspan.

Does that mean I'm not left enough?

Or does it simply imply that I'm left, but right for a change?

Getting confused here.

one thing is for sure, is that the Left is so left and the Rigt is so right that any middle grond can not be found for us to stand on any more......


New Just IN: "Uncle Sam has just been sold off to the highest bidder". Details at 11:00

'spider',

How could you doubt my intentions here?!?!?

I still think you're sooooooo 'RIGHT'!


And given this experpt from the article you cited, I can't understand for the life of me, why anyone in his 'RIGHT' mind would have summed up Greenspan's position as 'the war was about oil'?!?!?

Come on you 'left-wrong-evil-liars' read this short exerpt from the article and get it 'RIGHT':

"... 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."

See my point here?!?!?

Ther is no way anyone in his 'RIGHT' mind could ever disort these statements into the grotesque simplification that 'the war was about oil' !!!

I am 'LEFT' so puzzled and confused at the extend to which the 'RIGHT' is wronged!!! all the time.

Thanks to your always 'RIGHT' words and stands, those 'left-wrong-lying-evil' people might one day be 'CORRECTED' through your tireless righteousness (right above all entitlement), and get to the 'RIGHT' shore.

Keep up the right work, 'spider'. Without you, and people like you, the 'RIGHT' would not have anything 'LEFT' to stand on!

A question:

If someone hasn't read the book--or admits they probably won't--how can they say things are taken "out of context"? I'm sure it happens from time to time, but I'm talking about this specific case here. Reminds me of a saying I once heard:

For those who believe, no explanation is necessarry.
For those who don't, no explanation will do.

Guess it's that ole "left-wing conspiracy" rearing it's head again . Hey, now I know what I can blame the Tennessee Vols' loss Saturday on !

Damn, I like that knox!!


For those who believe, no explanation is necessarry.
For Bushies who don't, no explanation will do.

Hope you dont mind me takeing liberty with a slight word change!

Still, thats a long way of saying, REMOVE THE BLINDERS!!!!

Knox the pork I was referring to came out of the Federal Budget and went to W VA.

Well, then, something needs to be done. But it ISN'T an exclusively Democratic problem. But for the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't matter, because Spider was wrong with his original assumption, anyway.

Did you get him to admit it yet????????

Because as long as he doesn't he is right by default, you know, like

1)Spider is always right

2)Should Spider not be right article 1) comes into play.

Now that was just wrong andrea!!!

It wasn't right, though it was right???????

Was it left then??????

I'm so confused