People are giving Greenspan credibility about his comments on Bush because they want to bash bush...but Greenspan doesn't focus and analyze why Bush does what he does, he just tries to understand what needs to be done from a monetary perspective and how he needs to react to fiscal policy. But he has never been involved in fiscal decisions or administration policy outside of making overall spending recommendations. How is he to know why Bush went to war? Especially considering that he didn't like Bush for his decisions he made. I find it self-serving on his part to attack Bush on his foreign policy when Greenspan isn't a foreign policy expert. It's one thing for Greenspan to talk about why Bush's policies impacted his job...but to say that Bush went to war for oil???? Greenspan isn't in Bush's inner circle, he doesn't sit with Bush while he discusses foreign policy with his cabinet or advisors. So how on earth does Greenspan know this more than the other 1,000's of analyst who comment on the Presidency and executive branch?
You haven't read the article by Krugman, or you don't understand what happened. The short version is that Hunt cut a deal with the Kurds only totally wrecking the idea of revenue sharing for Iraq, which would help strengthen democracy among the three groups. His actions are going to make him money, and hurt democracy in Iraq. This man is on the board of Haliburton, owns his own Oil Company, and is part of Bush's Foreign affairs intel group which has access to high level intel on Iraq.
That's a pretty ignorant and narrow view. Nor do you, yet you feel perfectly qualified to definitively state why Bush went to war, even suggesting that "anyone paying attention" knew it: This war was mostly ideological and based on a vision of trying to create a pro-american secular democracy that could spread democracy and change the dynamics of the middle east. Most people who really pay attention have understood this from the beginning.
He has been interacting with 4 administrations over 19 years -- this gives him far more credibility than most to make the statements he has in his memoirs. The rest of your post is just baiting nonsense.
And perhaps the white house will take issue with him. But that doesn't mean the administration went to war for oil as Greenspan is stating. And to what level this hurts democracy in Iraq is debatable. We'll have to see how the administration handles this - since clearly they can't be too happy that they are being to made to look bad to make Hunt make money. We'll see.
To what level it hurts might be debatable, but the fact that it hurts democracy is undeniable, and it has already happened, and Bush hasn't removed him from the committee, removed his security clearance, or reprimanded him any way shape or form.
And it's ignorant of you to assume that Greenspan is the only one you should listen to and that's he the final say because he agrees with your view - a view that's based on ignorance since you're biased as Anti-Bush. Go study the neoconservative vision on the middle east that's been around since the 80's than come back and comment. It's hard to talk to someone who isn't educated but acts educated. Please don't take this the wrong way - but you don't know much about politics if you say iraq is about oil - that's just knee jerk liberalism. So annoying.
About monetary policy, not foreign policy. Since when does a math teacher become and expert on english just because he works with them on the same teacher's committed, or is married to one? that's all I am saying.
I think when people say it is about Oil, they mean Oil is the biggest reason. They are not necessarily denying that there are other purposes, e.g. spreading democracy, WMD, etc Frankly speaking, there are many other hot spots in the world that we might want to spread democracy or get rid of WMD as well. Fortunately, those places don't have oil, and they are spared by us.
but oil isn't the biggest reason. Not at least Iraq's oil. It's about changing the entire region, and turning the middle east into a pro-U.S. modern world. The neo-conservatives really believed this.
As I said, Greenspan is an expert about scarce resources. He noticed that oil will be a very scarce resource in years to come and we do need to have more control over it. That's how he connects the dots.
Bush doesn't reprimand friends no matter what errors they make - we all know that by now. I would imagine that the Kurds had plenty of people offering them deals beyond hunt...and if hunt was in a position to make a deal over someone else, I think you have to let hunt do it. It may have been more driven by the Kurds than Hunt....and Bagdad didn't disallow it, they just frowned on it. If Bush does indeed know the war is lost and that partition is envitable, than perhaps he is going to allow this stuff. You have to allow your allies to profit on a situation. Clinton was no different. But it's a completely different thing to say their allies are shaping their policy. I think the simply got allies who would benefit from their strategy, not the other way around.
This is why I said it's indirectly tied to oil. The Middle East has a high level of strategic interest. We are strategically dependent on a region that's not stable. This is not true for Africa, south Asia, and North Korea. It's not about getting cheap oil, it's about stopping another Oil Shock as a result of having enemies in the middle east.
Ok. Then we both agree oil is a factor. As to how big that is, I guess it would be a matter of opinion that we don't need to argue further.
What? You have to let Hunt do it? No you don't. You have to do what is best for stabilizing Iraq. The Kurds didn't let Baghdad have a say in the matter. They could still partition and have oil revenue sharing which is the only way it will be stabilized. The Sunnis will never allow a stable Iraq without oil revenue sharing.
you can't stop free enterprise. it's up to Bagdad to incent the Kurds into a deal that makes sense for them....not dictate one - that's tyranny.
