WASHINGTON - Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.

---

Greenspan isn't lying, he's saying that he, not the administration, thought invading Iraq was good for securing oil. Who knows what Bush really believes. But this isn't anything new about globalist Greenspan, who also favored illegal immigration as a means to "control inflation" and favors the illegal alien amnesty. He also bailed out his friends at Long Term Capital with government shananigans and taxpayer assets, when that hedge fund collapsed back in 98. Oh, and did I forget to mention that his wife is long time left wing NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell?

Allan Greenspan is a long time political hack of whichever party is in power now he is selling books. They all have the after the fact solution to all the world problems after they are gone just look at William Jefferson "Blow Job Bill" Clinton he now has the answers to all the world problems. Clinton and Carter should start the world problem resolution firm and call it CC's world.

---

It is also interesting to consider that if the war is about oil, it isn't necessarily about Iraqi oil.  The whole middle east is vulnerable to "rogues" like Saddam and the current Iranian leader.  It doesn't make it morally right, but it certainly makes it economically important that we consider carefully our options and actions when some tin pot dictator threatens stability of the oil supply and the same goes for some theocratic cabal as well.

---

Neocon rhetoric , too many seem oblivious to the fact that many are leaving the ship , or they are truly rats who wish to go down with it .

---

I'll give Greenspan a pass.  I think he was taken out of context.  Also, he also said he was more likely to vote Republican.  I believe his issues with Bush's administration is the uncontrolled spending which is not good for the economy and I'm sure most of us agree that government has grown under the Bush years.

FeedFwd said: It is also interesting to consider that if the war is about oil, it isn't necessarily about Iraqi oil.  The whole middle east is vulnerable to "rogues" like Saddam and the current Iranian leader.  It doesn't make it morally right, but it certainly makes it economically important that we consider carefully our options and actions when some tin pot dictator threatens stability of the oil supply and the same goes for some theocratic cabal as well.

Of course it's morally right to protect our oil interests from terrorists.  The free world depends on oil.  It would be immoral to stick our heads in the sand and not take a stand in the Middle East.

---

FeedFwd said: It is also interesting to consider that if the war is about oil, it isn't necessarily about Iraqi oil.  The whole middle east is vulnerable to "rogues" like Saddam and the current Iranian leader.  It doesn't make it morally right, but it certainly makes it economically important that we consider carefully our options and actions when some tin pot dictator threatens stability of the oil supply and the same goes for some theocratic cabal as well.

 

That tin pot dictator would be Al Gore and his band of sickos they are controlling the oil supply. We have plenty of oil here in the US but can't drill for it.

---

blaze77535 said:

FeedFwd said: It is also interesting to consider that if the war is about oil, it isn't necessarily about Iraqi oil.  The whole middle east is vulnerable to "rogues" like Saddam and the current Iranian leader.  It doesn't make it morally right, but it certainly makes it economically important that we consider carefully our options and actions when some tin pot dictator threatens stability of the oil supply and the same goes for some theocratic cabal as well.

 

That tin pot dictator would be Al Gore and his band of sickos they are controlling the oil supply. We have plenty of oil here in the US but can't drill for it.

 

Amen.......environmentalists are the true problem with the prices of oil in this nation.  The U.S. has never taken oil from another nation by force. 

blaze77535 said:

FeedFwd said: It is also interesting to consider that if the war is about oil, it isn't necessarily about Iraqi oil.  The whole middle east is vulnerable to "rogues" like Saddam and the current Iranian leader.  It doesn't make it morally right, but it certainly makes it economically important that we consider carefully our options and actions when some tin pot dictator threatens stability of the oil supply and the same goes for some theocratic cabal as well.

 

That tin pot dictator would be Al Gore and his band of sickos they are controlling the oil supply. We have plenty of oil here in the US but can't drill for it.

You are so right about the whackos controlling our oil supply, blaze.  Our country is rich in natual resources and perfectly capable of sustaining itself if allowed to.

---

Firewing, you are right, but remember that we don't own middle east oil until we buy it.  I'm not sure what stand, exactly, we must take in the middle east in order to avoid being immoral.  Honor our contracts would be a good stand to take.  Staying out of middle east politics might be another, but that seems to be open to question.

Blaze, you are right, too, except I'm not sure what plenty means.  No matter how much US oil we produced, I think we would all see significant lifestyle changes as soon as we stopped importing oil.

---

FireWing said:

blaze77535 said:

FeedFwd said: It is also interesting to consider that if the war is about oil, it isn't necessarily about Iraqi oil.  The whole middle east is vulnerable to "rogues" like Saddam and the current Iranian leader.  It doesn't make it morally right, but it certainly makes it economically important that we consider carefully our options and actions when some tin pot dictator threatens stability of the oil supply and the same goes for some theocratic cabal as well.

 

That tin pot dictator would be Al Gore and his band of sickos they are controlling the oil supply. We have plenty of oil here in the US but can't drill for it.

You are so right about the whackos controlling our oil supply, blaze.  Our country is rich in natual resources and perfectly capable of sustaining itself if allowed to.

 

Considering how our Government has shown us that it will do whatever it wants , no matter what the majority thinks (where's the fence), I am suspicous on the ability of just a few tree huggers to keep oil exploration and recovery from happening ? There has got to be a hidden agenda to this policy . No offshore drilling (where there is plenty of reserves) , no tundra drilling (where there are lots of reserves) basically no exploration . Are we saving for when the Mid East is out of oil ? Something does not add up at any rate . Once again , because of a few tree huggers ? I don't think so .

---

bob graham las vegas said:

FireWing said:

blaze77535 said:

FeedFwd said: It is also interesting to consider that if the war is about oil, it isn't necessarily about Iraqi oil.  The whole middle east is vulnerable to "rogues" like Saddam and the current Iranian leader.  It doesn't make it morally right, but it certainly makes it economically important that we consider carefully our options and actions when some tin pot dictator threatens stability of the oil supply and the same goes for some theocratic cabal as well.

 

That tin pot dictator would be Al Gore and his band of sickos they are controlling the oil supply. We have plenty of oil here in the US but can't drill for it.

You are so right about the whackos controlling our oil supply, blaze.  Our country is rich in natual resources and perfectly capable of sustaining itself if allowed to.

 

Considering how our Government has shown us that it will do whatever it wants , no matter what the majority thinks (where's the fence), I am suspicous on the ability of just a few tree huggers to keep oil exploration and recovery from happening ? There has got to be a hidden agenda to this policy . No offshore drilling (where there is plenty of reserves) , no tundra drilling (where there are lots of reserves) basically no exploration . Are we saving for when the Mid East is out of oil ? Something does not add up at any rate . Once again , because of a few tree huggers ? I don't think so .

 

Absolutely, Bob. It's been pretty clear that the environmentalists are only the excuse made by each administration for not drilling in America. I believe we are saving these reserves for a catastrophic event (nuclear attack, world war, mideast halocaust, etc.). This is all well under control by our government and we get lip service. Much of the cost of a gallon of gas are for government taxes as well. So let's stop blaming the arabs.

---

If it wasn't that big business(oil) is suppressing alternatives to oil consumption, the demand could be reduced to a small percentage of what is now consumed.

     They want to continue to make big money from the old technology till it runs out.

     It seems odd that no one complains about the amount of petroleum that is wasted in making useless plastic landfill. 

Greenspan Says Euro Could Replace Dollar

Monday, September 17, 2007 10:01 PM Article Font Size

Former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said it is possible that the euro could replace the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of choice.   According to an advance copy of an interview to be published in Thursday's edition of the German magazine Stern, Greenspan said that the dollar is still slightly ahead in its use as a reserve currency, but added that "it doesn't have all that much of an advantage" anymore.   The euro has been soaring against the U.S. currency in recent weeks, hitting all-time high of $1.3927 last week as the dollar has fallen on turbulent market conditions stemming from the ongoing U.S. subprime crisis. The Fed meets this week and is expected to lower its benchmark interest rate from the current 5.25 percent.   Greenspan said that at the end of 2006, some 25 percent of all currency reserves held by central banks were held in euros, compared to 66 percent for the U.S. dollar.   In terms of being used as a payment for cross-border transactions, the euro is trailing the dollar only slightly with 39 percent to 43 percent.   Greenspan said the European Central Bank has become "a serious factor in the global economy."   He said the increased usage of the euro as a reserve currency has led to a lowering of interest rates in the euro zone, which has "without any doubt contributed to the current economic growth."

       THE GLOBAL ECONOMY? Im amazed how fast they are moving.

---

I do no know what is fact or fiction half the time,but I did read not long ago that our Government is pressuring the Iraqi Government to let the American oil companies in,so who knows for sure?Also that Iran would be next,and Columbia after that.

dinosaur said:

If it wasn't that big business(oil) is suppressing alternatives to oil consumption, the demand could be reduced to a small percentage of what is now consumed.

     They want to continue to make big money from the old technology till it runs out.

     It seems odd that no one complains about the amount of petroleum that is wasted in making useless plastic landfill. 

 

I believe it was Ted Kennedy who was against the wind farms near Martha's Vineyard, not Big Oil.  I believe it was primarily the environmentalists fighting nuclear energy development, not big oil.  ADM seems to be holding their own in fighting for EtOH and big oil doesn't seem to be fighting too hard, although car manufacturers have cried some in the past.  It is good to remember that "big Oil" only owns between 10 and 20% of the worlds oil reserves.  The rest is owned by specific countries and their surrogate national oil companies.

Jani,

I don't believe gasoline taxes have been rising as the price of oil has.  They are assessed on volume (in the US and mass in most of the rest of the world), not sales like a traditional sales tax.  So while they are still a significant portion of the cost of a gallon of gas, they are shrinking as a percentage of the cost.  And in theory, that revenue stream goes to building/repairing the roads used by those buying the gasoline.  You should think of it as a use fee like a toll for highways rather than a traditional tax.  In that view, you may not like it, but it is more palatable than simply increasing income taxes.  I believe US gas taxes are relatively low compared to most of the rest of the developed countries in the world.

---

Gasonline taxes are just another stream of revenue for politicians to piss off. It all goes into a general fund and if any thing is left after the politicians get through giving it away or stealing it there may be something left for highways.

---

BP is a big oil company that is investing in alternative sorces of energy.

http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=4700

---

bob graham las vegas said: Neocon rhetoric , too many seem oblivious to the fact that many are leaving the ship , or they are truly rats who wish to go down with it .

Greenspan isn't betraying the Nation....he's turning his back on Bush.  Greenspan is a very influential member of the CFR and was involved with the Fed for decades.  He just confirmed what most Americans knew...

---