Alan Greenspan Bashes W, Repubs
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:15 amhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB1189785 ... =djemalert
Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/busin ... ei=5087%0A
"They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose" in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 461214.ece
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he says.
Many comments in Greenspan's book will not go over well in republican circles. To me, the most interesting question here is not the substance of what Greenspan writes, but rather how it will be spun in the media. Here are just some of the options:
1. Bush-bashing is popular, and Greenspan wanted his book to sell.
2. Greenspan is partly responsible for the current fiscal crisis, so he is attempting to divert attention from his own faults.
3. Greenspan is old and is losing his marbles.
4. Greenspan is "fishing" for an advisory role in Hilary's campaign.
5. This book is bad for the democrats. Greenspan's comments show how important it will be to elect a true conservative to the whitehouse in the next election.
6. Nothing new to see here, folks. Greenspan is a former somebody.
Any I've missed?
Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/busin ... ei=5087%0A
"They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose" in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 461214.ece
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he says.
Many comments in Greenspan's book will not go over well in republican circles. To me, the most interesting question here is not the substance of what Greenspan writes, but rather how it will be spun in the media. Here are just some of the options:
1. Bush-bashing is popular, and Greenspan wanted his book to sell.
2. Greenspan is partly responsible for the current fiscal crisis, so he is attempting to divert attention from his own faults.
3. Greenspan is old and is losing his marbles.
4. Greenspan is "fishing" for an advisory role in Hilary's campaign.
5. This book is bad for the democrats. Greenspan's comments show how important it will be to elect a true conservative to the whitehouse in the next election.
6. Nothing new to see here, folks. Greenspan is a former somebody.
Any I've missed?