- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Bush vs. Greenspan: White House Fires Back
September 16, 2007 2:12 PM
ABC News' John Cochran Reports: Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's memoirs, 'The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World' doesn't go on sale officially until Monday, but already the White House has fired back at two charges he levels.
Greenspan writes that "the Iraq war is largely about oil." That did not go down very well at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue where spokesman Tony Fratto told ABC News he would try to restrain himself. But he still took a pretty good shot at Greenspan: "That sounds like Georgetown cocktail party analysis. The reasons we went to Iraq are well understood and had to do with wmd (weapons of mass destruction), enforcing UN sanctions. To the extent that oil has anything to do with our engagement in Iraq today, it is the danger that al Qaeda could obtain control of oil assets and use them to threaten our interests."
On ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that although he has "a lot of respect for Mr. Greenspan," he disagrees with him. Gates said "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991 and I just don't believe it's true."
Administration officials also challenge Greenspan to explain all the other places in the world with oil and where American forces are not engaged. One official added that the only other place where U.S. troops are engaged is in Afghanistan which, the official said, has no oil.
Nor was the White House pleased with Greenspan's assertion that his "biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out of control spending." Greenspan, who headed the Fed for almost two decades, said the Bush White House showed little interest in fiscal discipline.
To that, spokesman Fratto retorted "We had veto threats, which were used to good effect to keep spending within the President's numbers. Because Congress worked with us, vetoes weren't necessary." As for the spending itself, Fratto said "We're not going to apologize for increased spending to protect our national security. That isn't just 'increased spending,' it's an investment in the safety and security of the nation."
When Greenspan retired from government service, he seemed to leaving on good terms with the White House. President Bush praised him: "He has dominated his age like no central banker in history. He has contributed to a better life for all Americans. And I thank him for his service."
Apparently, both men had been gritting their teeth all the years they worked together. Greenspan writes "..the economy was his Achilles heel, and a result we ended up with a terrible relationship."
September 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (38)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
As usual, Bush accepts no responsibility for doing anything wrong, or even making mistakes. No wonder he's president, he's perfect! But, then again, with God speaking to him directly, what would we expect?
Posted by: Surprised Citizen | Sep 16, 2007 4:07:19 PM
There were NO weapons of mass-destruction and Bush & Company knew it - that has been proven over and over by so many independent sources. This new rational about protecting oil there... laughable to say the least. The trillions we spent killing and polluting Iraq with depleated uranium weapons could have been better spent here in the USA in developing alternative non-oil dependent energy instead. This is a sad, sad time in America - Bush & Company should he held accountable for war crimes.
Posted by: Rick_VT | Sep 16, 2007 6:38:11 PM
The war is about oil & Cheneys no-bid contract by Haliburton. I said before the war started and still saying it now.
Posted by: marc | Sep 16, 2007 6:44:56 PM
True, Bush & Co does not have fiscal restraint. They want to fatten themselves up the rest of their life before they leave their administration. They make sure that this darn thing is perpetrated until they are out of office.
Posted by: marc | Sep 16, 2007 6:47:47 PM
I totally agree! I am from texas, the bush family is an oil family, lets make no mistake, this thing was planned right down to bush cheating in the first election against Al Gore. I read somewhere that Bush was in a meeting with Osama Bin Laden's brother on Sept 11. and all the evidence of those buildings going down because of internal bombs....and now we have all this positive reports coming out of Iraq- it is all propaganda and positive spin covering up what is really going on, WE ARE STEALING THEIR OIL.
Posted by: jayblu3 | Sep 16, 2007 7:15:08 PM
The WH spokesmen get more nutty all the time. Fratto, whose he?, says that Alan Greenspan, ALAN GREENSPAN!!!, is making Georgetown cocktail party points in his book. Are they completely stupid. Who dreams up these rejoinders. Better to say no comment than go up against Greenspan who is one of the best two fed chairman ever!
Posted by: John | Sep 16, 2007 7:27:52 PM
Bush is a warmonger and a liar but Greenspan isnt much better. Greenie rubberstamped Bushs policy of cutting taxes, waging war and spending like drunken sailors all at the same time .He said it was just fine.
Posted by: Keith | Sep 16, 2007 7:41:32 PM
You just have to love the remarks made against Greenspan. Bush and his entire cabinet would not have an equal grasp of the issues, and it is quite apparent they do not! They are only 4 TRILLION in additional debt!!
Quoting from the article,"Greenspan writes that "the Iraq war is largely about oil." That did not go down very well at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue where spokesman Tony Fratto told ABC News he would try to restrain himself. But he still took a pretty good shot at Greenspan: "That sounds like Georgetown cocktail party analysis. The reasons we went to Iraq are well understood and had to do with wmd (weapons of mass destruction), enforcing UN sanctions." Who is he trying to kid, everyone knows the war is over oil as Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorist, and he had no WMD's an BUSH knew it!
My favorite from the article:
"On ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that although he has "a lot of respect for Mr. Greenspan," he disagrees with him. Gates said 'I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991 and I just don't believe it's true.'"
Gates can disagree all he wants, but I'll take Greenspan's word as we already know the war is about oil! In addition, Gates comes off as an idiot as the Gulf war was about throwing Iraq out of Kuwait. Does he really think we are that stupid, or perhaps he just doesn't know what he is talking about, as usual!
It is still about oil! The Iraq Study Group recommended that we keep troops in Iraq (Forever?) to "Protect Our Assets!" The Republicans want to pass this garbage, however the only asset there is in Iraq is oil! I don't understand why they think we are stupid! They may be, but we are not dumb enough to buy anything Bush and his cronies say. They are all liars!
Posted by: DanW | Sep 16, 2007 7:54:11 PM
Uh, the war wasnt about oil. I guess thats why the first thing the military did was take over the oil fields and sell them (for cheap) to US oil companies. No, it was NEVER about oil.
Posted by: dan | Sep 16, 2007 7:58:18 PM
Rush, Hanity and other have been e-mailed their talking points from the White House Propaganda Ministry. The attacks on Alan will begin tomorrow on Fox News. By six EST we will see their mantra parroted here by a few wiling idiots.
Posted by: Mike Johnson | Sep 16, 2007 8:01:27 PM
How can any sane person without laughing say that Cheney and Bush has any d... concern about this country and the citizens living in it.
Look who is paying the price for his arrogant , selfish , corruption and destruction on our nation.
Look who is reaping the wealth , power and control of this country from cheney's actions and policies.
If you have half a brain the BS from this administration smells to high heaven and hits you in the face.
Posted by: Sport2008 | Sep 16, 2007 8:23:47 PM
Sure, Iraq was about oil from the beginning, but why invade Iraq? Remember the neo-con's plan? It was Iraq first and as soon as possible thereafter Iran and Syria would follow. Oilman Bush must have known that an attack on Iran would bring great uncertainty to the world's crude oil market for and unpredictable length of time and if he did not understand that, the "Seven Sisters" would have surely told him so. Did he really believe that Iranian oil export could be restored to the market within a few months? (The oft-heard argument that since WE do not buy crude from Iran WE will not suffer shortfalls is misleading because the current buyers of Iranian oil would immediately begin to buy crude in "our" markets). In any event, oil from Iraq might just have compensated for the transient loss from Iran to keep gas prices in the USA within reasonable bounds. Israel's current critics of Bush are wrong. Iran WAS the major target from the beginning and Iraq was merely a convenient stepping stone with lots of black gold in the ground. "Nobody could have predicted then that it would be a slippery stone" (freely adapted from General Petraeus). I wonder what the "Seven Sisters" tell President Bush today about "regime change in Iran"! I bet they do not like his bluster one bit.
Posted by: DH | Sep 16, 2007 8:34:05 PM
They will go on denying the obvious to their dieing days. The portion of America which is paying attention is not fooled by these criminals. I just hope that they can be driven out of power before the ammount of damage they do increases to an unmanagable level.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 16, 2007 8:38:41 PM
The War was all about the long previous Neocon motive of creating and keeping a permanent presence in Iraq for the oil, military and political benefits of "stabilizing" the region in a pro-neocon US regime's favor. The WMD excuse is a tired, exposed joke of a fraud. Using the UN is also a ridiculous joke as the Bush regime had already before, during and after kept a consistant disdain towards that Institution. Using Gen Powell as an unknowing patsy in the UN was a brilliant strategic move, but to still rely on the old trick as a factual basis for War only further shows the persistent evilness and lying nature of the current US regime.
Posted by: Macca | Sep 16, 2007 9:11:23 PM
Will someone in the recognized news media please PLEASE come out with a well researched and documented report on how much - when all is said and done, when Bush & Company leave office - how much each of them will have persunally profited from this war, from the oil, from it all. Aren't there conflict of interest laws or something similar that prevents politicians from profiting from their positions? Seems as if Martha Stewart get nailed these guys should be too.
Posted by: Rick_VT | Sep 16, 2007 9:17:35 PM
All you morons who have been Bush-bashing as usual would be talking differently if their son or daughter or other loved one had been raped and murdered by Islamic terrorist in the years since 9/11 (which would of happened (and still could) if we hadn't been kicking butt since then)
Posted by: Smarter Guy | Sep 16, 2007 9:20:47 PM
Hey "Smarter" Guy - in fact, my wife's first cousin was trapped in World Trade Tower 2 when it went down. But sacrificing another 3000 Americans - on top of that day in 2001 - by causing a mess at Iraq doesn't add up to "kicking butt" or any kind of good value deal for America.
Posted by: Rick_VT | Sep 16, 2007 10:16:22 PM
Lets see..the US news media, just becomming aware of these staggering new developments (blood for oil!!)from such a reputable, virtually unimpeachable source, with such extradinary significance, will want to immediately investigate this matter further and promptly report their findings to the American people...NOT a chance. Until US citizens boycott the products supporting these corporate behemeths, picket their studios, write letters, contact local lawmakers the charades will continue unimpeded. Its time for the truth!
Posted by: 4TruthNmedia | Sep 16, 2007 11:12:10 PM
Size of the Al Qaeda Terrorist Force in Iraq that can not be contained with 200,000 Iraqi Security Forces that can operate with minimal Allied Support(50,000 US Troops, 5,000 Allied Troops:
The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which arguably has the best track record for producing accurate intelligence assessments, last year estimated that AQI's membership was in a range of "more than 1,000." When compared with the military's estimate for the total size of the insurgency—between 20,000 and 30,000 full-time fighters—this figure puts AQI forces at around 5 percent.
When turning to the question of manpower, military officials told the New York Times in August that of the roughly 24,500 prisoners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq (nearly all of whom are Sunni), just 1,800—about 7 percent—claim allegiance to al-Qaeda in Iraq. Moreover, the composition of inmates does not support the assumption that large numbers of foreign terrorists, long believed to be the leaders and most hard-core elements of AQI, are operating inside Iraq. In August, American forces held in custody 280 foreign nationals—slightly more than 1 percent of total inmates.
What's the real number of Al Qaeda in Iraq still on the "BATTLEFIELD"? Apparently it is less than 2,000 yet we need 170,000 troops and the help of 200,000 Iraqi Security Forces for another to keep them at bay until next fall. Then over 50,000 US troops and over 350,000 Iraqi Security Forces will be needed for the foreseeable future.
Give me a break!
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html
Posted by: Rogue Cowboy | Sep 16, 2007 11:12:18 PM
The war in Iraq has and always will be about the flow of Middle Eastern oil into the United States and the western hemisphere. I just wish that all Americans knew the truth about what is happening over here in Iraq. The U.S. military has been ordered to carry out the president’s dirty work and the loyalty of the military is being abused. The military is dying in the name of oil, not preserving America's freedom. The U.S. presence in Iraq is keeping oil out of the hands of the Russians, Chinese, French and Japanese whom Saddam Hussein had oil exploration contracts with. These contracts were going to be honored once the sanctions expired. The intent of the invasion was to capture or kill Saddam Hussein and nullify the contracts Iraq had made in order to protect our "National Interest". There were never any weapons of mass destruction nor was terrorism an issue in Iraq until we invaded. The sole purpose of this man’s presidency was invading Iraq. This is why the 2000 Presidential election was so critical for GWB, which explains why it was a stolen election from the very beginning.
Posted by: realamerica1 | Sep 17, 2007 1:10:17 AM
Post a comment



