Lantos agrees with Greenspan: Iraq war was largely about oil.
Lantos agrees with Greenspan: Iraq war was largely about oil.
In his new book, The Age of Turbulence, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan asserts, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows. The Iraq war is largely about oil.” Today on CNN’s Late Edition, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA) said he agreed with Greenspan “to a large extent,” adding, “I think it is very remarkable that it took Alan Greenspan all these many years and being out of office for stating the obvious.” Watch it:
UPDATE: Defense Secretary Robert Gates rejected Greenspan’s claim. “I wasn’t here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war,” Gates said. But he added, “I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don’t believe it’s true.”
Transcript:
BLITZER: Alan Greenspan has a new book that has just come out, Chairman Lantos, entitled, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, in which he makes a very, very sharp charge about the war in Iraq. I’ll read it to you: I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows. The Iraq war is largely about oil. Do you agree with him?
LANTOS: To a very large extent I agree with him, and I think it is very remarkable that it took Alan Greenspan all these many years and being out of office for stating the obvious. It is self-evident that this administration would not have taken the position it has had it not been for the oil issue.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“…I think it is very remarkable that it took Alan Greenspan all these many years and being out of office for stating the obvious.”
I think the key ingredient for former advisors/employees to speak honestly about this administration is when they are out of office, or having resigned.
Pres. Bush won’t allow people to speak honestly about the administration when they work for it.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:07 pmExcept for the ‘not’ part about the first gulf war.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:07 pmHow long before our deranged resident troll shows up on this thread to call Greenspan a Nazi?
September 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pmGreenspan saw what they did to his friend & colleague O’Neill & bravely kept his mouth shut lo these many years.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pmGreenspan was also well aware of what they did to Valerie Plame, as his wife, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, was one of the COLD CALL 6.
still, he said nothing.
i’ll actually enjoy watching the rightwing smear Greenspan.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pmGates: “I just don’t believe it’s true”
Of course not, if you did you wouldn’t have a job.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:18 pmIt is about oil, in the broad sense. Put it this way: if all of the United State’s oil sources were about to dry up, but Iraq still had plenty but was under control of Saddam Hussein, would we invade and occupy Iraq on those grounds? Absolutely, and with the full support of the American people. That scenario wasn’t strictly true when we invaded, but I have no doubts that elements of it were in the backs of the minds of the Bush and the neocons when we invaded. If our American lifestyles are threatened, all of those noble ideals about respecting a nation’s sovereignty will go out the window.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:25 pmI will need to read the Greenspan Book to kow whether he really means it is about oil. It would seem to be more about the money and power that controlling the Oil represents. Greenspan should, of all people, understand that this administration, is run by Cheney, who is supported and controlled by those who profteer off this war and those who will profit from the Oil. To simply say it is about the Oil suggests that getting the oil served any broader American interest to meet our “need” for the resource.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:30 pmImagine that: a declining world power waging war for control of a natural resource! When was it the last time you heard of such a thing? Ah yes, Romans protecting their imports of silk for the well-dressed (SUV driving minorities). Well, maybe it’s not the same thing but it does have a ring to it.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pmBlood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum (The American Empire Project) (Hardcover)
by Michael T. Klare
Why the Bush administration has been a disaster on energy and foreign policy
September 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pmIraq Fiasco Occupation is almost exclusively about controlling the OIL reserves of that country. Bush Regime is lying whenever they deny it.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:37 pm#5, I think you’ve got it. Of course oil is part of the equation. But why oil? What does oil represent? It represents power and influence in the world. Cheney and the PNAC seek control of the 2nd biggest oil reserve in the world in order to keep it out of Chinese and Russian hands and to maintain U.S. hegemony. Modern economies cannot last without available energy. The oil contracts in the rest of the Middle East with U.S. companies usually run for 3 years and then must be renewed. Cheney and Bush seek to impose an oil law on Iraq for contracts between U.S. oil companies and Iraq that run for 30 years. This is what the Iraqis are being asked to push through their parliament and something that many of them oppose. 30 years of control of Iraq’s oil by U.S. companies is a long time, maybe a period that will last until we come up with an entirely new technology to replace it. And then there’s Iran, which supposedly has the 3rd largest oil reserves.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:39 pmUPDATE: Defense Secretary Robert Gates rejected Greenspan’s claim. “I wasn’t here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war,†Gates said. But he added, “I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don’t believe it’s true.â€
Gates is using a classic straw man argument, and a meaningless one at that. There were a lot of things predicted about the first Gulf War that didn’t come to fruition. (Casualties in the thousands?) So what? (And wrong Gulf War.) It has nothing to do with the fact that this particular war (Iraq) was started over oil, and he is clearly in no position to even attempt to deny it as, by his own admission, he wasn’t there “for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war”. So he cannot claim that it isn’t true that this war is for oil.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pmThe truth out of the mouth of a loyal Republican who worked under many other Presidents. This shows the American people never watched what was happening to this country. The plan was made before Bush stole the election. I feel bad for the dead soldiers families that still support the lies now that the truth as to why their love ones died for greed by the White House for Iraq oil. The advantage American might still cheer for the lies Bush is telling but the Rich Investors will not get involved nor put their money in this mess. Gates got the job because Rummy got his money and they needed another liar or a person who wouldn’t ask question but just do as their told. Gates and Petraeus were appointed to be yes men while using his once good record to allow the White House to continue it’s mission on getting control of Iraq Oil rights.
For those who still continue to believe the lie just look at he Stock Market and watch Iraq follow the orders of Iran, Syria and Turkey. Notice how the Media hasn’t reported that the Kurds have already made contracts with other countries not the US for the Oil on the Kurd land.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:45 pmIt would have been nice if both these worthless pieces of sh*t had spoken up, oh 4 or 5 yrs, and 3K plus dead American soldiers and multiple 100,000s of dead Iraqis ago.
September 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pmTo simply say it is about the Oil suggests that getting the oil served any broader American interest to meet our “need†for the resource.
Comment by rehbock — September 16, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
It never ceases to amaze me that the words of the victimizers will serve as confort to the victims. Greenspan and Lantos are two of the same kind, they do their harm and then write books decrying the harm done. Laughing all the way to the bank!
September 16th, 2007 at 3:53 pmHow long before our deranged resident troll shows up on this thread to call Greenspan a Nazi?
Comment by VerbalKint — September 16, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
He just popped on another thread under the name “BANZooey”. How clever!
September 16th, 2007 at 4:05 pmDid we ever really think this was about “freedom and democracy?”
Having lived in Saudi Arabia much of my life and being familiar with the history of the oil industry in that country this rings very true. The first oil companies in Arabia were Standard of California (Chevron) and later Texaco, Mobil and Exxon. In the early 1930s Standard of California signed an agreement with the Saudi King Abdel Azziz granting it exclusive rights to explore, drill for and produce oil giving the consortium of the four American oil companies which came to be known as ARAMCO, ownership of the Saudi oil. In turn ARAMCO paid the Saudis a royalty for each barrel they sold. In the beginning it was something on the order of 25 cents a barrel. Remember, oil was $2.50 a barrel back then. This arrangement lasted until the early 70s when the Saudi Government began a transition to full ownership of the county’s natural resources, where ARAMCO, the company my father worked for, for nearly 30 years, became a contractor to the Saudi government to produce the oil.
The difference between the Saudi/American agreement in the 1930s and what is now occurring in Iraq is that in the 1930s no one knew for sure if there was oil in Arabia, not to mention there weren’t 160,000 American soldiers in Arabia. The Americans took a very big risk and didn’t find oil until after many millions in investments and a couple of years of drilling with the 7th well in Dhahran. Much of the oil in Iraq has been found and with present day techniques the rest won’t be that difficult to find. The so called oil “sharing” law is a giveaway/payback to the American oil industry. One could argue and some of the more honest supporters of the war do, that since we spent our national treasure and blood to “secure” these oilfields we have a right to the profit from our “investment.” I disagree. It belongs to the Iraqi people and unless we want to continue to fuel more anger, resentment, insurgency and terrorism against us for many years we should withdraw and let the Iraqi’s run their own show. If they want to hire Chevron et. al to help produce this oil that’s fine but don’t pressure them at the barrel of a gun to grant ownership to non-Iraqi companies.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:09 pmGood. Now it’s time to start discussing
1. The draft,
2. or alternative energy.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:21 pmFrank you’re a breath of fresh air.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:25 pmWell written explanation of the psychology of those that wont admit wrongs in Iraq…
HERE
September 16th, 2007 at 4:26 pmGood. Now it’s time to start discussing
1. The draft,
2. or alternative energy.
Comment by Guido, OBGYN, Lover — September 16, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
One of the alternative power sources could be BURNING REPUGNISCUMS on a NEOCON ALTER!!!! HAHAAAAHHHA…HAHA…HAHAHAH….
September 16th, 2007 at 4:26 pmThe nation would hold its collective breath when Greenspan was about to make a statement. His word was held in high regard (rightly or wrongly). At this late stage, he tells us that the war was “largely for oil” — duh!! We knew that — if he would have said so, it would have had an influence. Instead of supporting Bush’s tax cuts, he could have clearly stated the long-term impact of Bush’s foolhardy financial policy.
Greenspan, like so many others, is too little, too late. It’s too late now to rectify the wrongs that could have been averted if he had the courage to speak the plain truth in the past.
He’s a millionaire many times over — what the hell was his rationale for not speaking up until now — like so many of those goddamn republiscum he does not have an ounce of integrity! He was going to take advantage of his position and status for as long as he could and let the nation suffer under policies that he secretly opposed.
Go to hell Greenspan. You can’t take your money with you.
I was giving Gates the benefit of a doubt when he first came into office, and I think my benefit is shrinking and my doubt is growing. He is another lackey for Bush. Another one who will deliver the news that is in direct opposition to the boy-king’s rosy scenario, like Petraeus. They will fall on their swords and that miserable, lying s.o.b. in the white house will get away scot-free.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:28 pmNOW he speaks out where was this backbone 3 years ago?
September 16th, 2007 at 4:29 pmThe first Gulf War is considered a failure. Gates knows this. He’s a liar.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:29 pm15/ Frank – An American Patriot – wellspoken
America is not only using the barrel of a gun and the internal ministries militia , its using lack of food , water , medical supplies , electricity , it releasing mayhem on the Iraiqs to sign over their Oil, thats the only reason george still wants to stay
theres no Saddam , WMD, time to leave
September 16th, 2007 at 4:30 pm“…I think it is very remarkable that it took Alan Greenspan all these many years and being out of office for stating the obvious.â€`
So what took him so long? The only reason why Greenspan is speaking out now is because he is trying to deflect the blame for the collapse of our economy due to the sub-prime leans he touted to the American people. Greenspan is scum and anyone who worked for the Bushies and didn’t tell the truth until they had written a book are scum also. Where were their morals and ethics when they could have made a difference with what they said?
September 16th, 2007 at 4:32 pmThis is great!!
The GREAT MELT DOWN OF THE REPUGNISCUM PARTY!!!
IN 2008 REPUGNISCUM’S WILL GO DOWN IN FLAMES!!!
SEE YA!!
September 16th, 2007 at 4:32 pmComing from Alan Greenspan, the famous fedchair who garnered long standing bi partisan respect and admiration, is a death blow to the Bush administration.
When Alan Greenspan speaks, a lot of highly influential people, listen.
Watch. This one might be a sleeper, but it’ll have legs in the stretch.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:33 pmGates: “I just don’t believe it’s trueâ€
Of course not, if you did you wouldn’t have a job.
Comment by bobwurst
Or even worse, he couldn’t sleep at night knowing what he was doing in the name of Oil. I’m sure Gates has talked himself into believing that we destroyed Iraq and are occupying Iraq to bring democracy to those people who were living a very stable life under Saddam Hussein.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:34 pmGates: “I just don’t believe it’s trueâ€
Note that he did NOT say: “that is not true”
Here’s what IS true.
The global cabal of banksters, oil barrons, Media barrons, Zionists & Royals CONSPIRED to implement 9/11 to serve as the pretext for the acquisition of oil -soaked desert know as “Eretz Israel” or “Greater Israel” by the Zionists.
Israel, personified in the form of David Rockefeller, through his false front entities, the CFR, JINSA, AIPAC, and others, are totally controlling the American Congress in order to enable the genocide of the Arab people residing atop the oil. Israel is blackmailing the United States to nuke Iran and take out Syria at the same time.
All of the guilty parties are piling on the “Blame GW” bandwagon to deflect attention away from their own guilty deeds.
This is the largest conspiracy ever conceived, and the truth is hot on their trail.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:35 pmFrank you’re a breath of fresh air.
Comment by Guido, OBGYN, Lover
Wow, I was worried there for a minute. I thought he was talking about Francine, our resident ball-less troll. But he was talking about a Frank with excellent critical thinking skills. Francine could learn a lesson from this Frank.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pmbut don’t pressure them at the barrel of a gun to grant ownership to non-Iraqi companies.
Comment by Frank – An American Patriot — September 16, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Answer this: when they start producing the oil, who are they going to sell it to except to us, the Chinese, Indians…etc? At what price? (market price of course) Through whose marketing outlets? I thought Standard Oil (Rockefeller) was no longer in the picture (it’s a free market, you know). All this unnecessary fighting and bloodletting comes from the minds of very smart people at the top of American corporations (yes, they’re smart but also very greedy).
September 16th, 2007 at 4:39 pmFinally, we come to the big question: Is it because of Israel?
Its going to be fun to watch the trolls and the right wing start the smear campaign on Alan Greenspan.
More and more people are going to see what a republican does to someone, who disagrees with them.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:43 pmActually – most people don’t realize that the monetary policies are set by a PRIVATE CABAL – the BANKSTERS – the “Fed.”
The “Federal Reserve” is a not “Federal.” It is private – and Greenspan personally assured the destruction of the housing market when he blew this bubble up to its massive climax.
I remember well the day he gave the speech that lit the fuse. He effectively said:
“If you’re in a 30 year mortgage, you’re a fool…adjustable rate mortgages are the path to riches.”
The FED has been feeding us bogus numbers. All of the numbers released by the government relative to the economy are false – chosen to create appearances and outcomes, not chosen based in reality. The entire government has become politicized, and the truth is only revealed when it’s too late to do anything about it.
Greenspan lied about the actual rate of inflation, which it has recently been revealed by Richard Fisher, the President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, was actually a half point higher than the government was telling us at the time they were driving mortagage lending rates to zero.
At a time when the Fed SHOULD have been taking away the punchbowl – Greenspan made a personal appeal to be reckless with your home financing and flip into a three year or five year ARM – borrow against your equity – and spend it.
HOW MUCH DID GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY INFLUENCE FED POLICY FOR POLITICAL GAIN? WAS IT BUSH WHO DEMANDED 0% INTEREST RATES, AND GREENSPAN WHO COMPLIED?
Greenspan met with Cheney HOW MANY TIMES? They met for breakfast at Cheney’s house on January 14, 2001, a week before the inauguration, and nine days before Greenspan’s thumbs-up-on-tax-cuts testimony to Congress.
Greenspan retired in January. The housing bubble he created has yet another 30%-plus to fall.
The conspiracy to entrap homeowners into indentured servitude is complete. If you are among the Nouveaux Homeless” – you have two choices…repair roads and bridges or fight wars.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:47 pmAs justification after justification has fallen away, nothing of any real value to Americans remains in Iraq besides the oil itself, nearly a ninth of the world’s proven reserves. Put another way: if this war is not about oil, then truly we stand poised at the abyss.
Oil is the only justification for the war that the Bush administration has consistently refused to avow with Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and now a bit more candy ass with Gates.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:48 pmace -you seem to be a bit of a raving lunatic..
September 16th, 2007 at 4:49 pmIn the 1996-2000 period it was apparently necessary for the chairman to visit the White House about 12 times per year, or once per month. For no apparent reason, Mr. Greenspan’s visits to the White House tripled from just 12 in 2000 to 37 in 2001, when Bush took office. Starting in January 2001, the same month Mr. Greenspan began cutting rates and flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts, he visited the White House at least three times per month, with the only slowdown in June and July of that year.
What were previously monthly meetings continued to skyrocket to over one per week in both 2002 (55 meetings) and 2003 (68 meetings).
These White House meetings since 2001 were with officials at the highest level, something Mr. Greenspan did not do in 2000 or apparently since 1996 based on his monthly meetings there. For example, in 2003 he met with the President once, Vice President Cheney seven times, Condoleezza Rice six times, and Chief of Staff Andy Card three times. In March 2003 he had 14 White House meetings, and in July 2003 he met with six members of the Cabinet, including Colin Powell.
Such increasingly frequent meetings at the most senior level, including the Oval Office, are appropriate for a politician but not a central banker, whose political independence is paramount. The noteworthy increase in these meetings since 2001 is puzzling and problematic.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/05/fed_chiefs_cale.html
The chairman has met with Vice President Cheney at least 17 times since early January 2001; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, 11 times; Rice, 12 times; Card, six times; Powell, once; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, twice; and Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis Libby, once, according to the Fed’s copies of Greenspan’s schedule.
Greenspan had at least four official appointments with Cheney and one with Rumsfeld before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the Fed records.
It is not clear from the records whether Greenspan might have had more such meetings, since a number of appointments are described only as “White House meeting,” or “White House lunch,” without specifying the participants.
Greenspan has known Cheney and Rumsfeld for decades, having served with them in previous Republican administrations. Before Sept. 11, Greenspan was already calling more frequently on the White House and various cabinet secretaries, including then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill, another long-time friend from the Ford administration and private business.
“Vice President Cheney has known Alan Greenspan for many years in a variety of roles, throughout their careers, and the vice president has high regard for him,” said Cheney’s spokesman Kevin Kellems. “In terms of the content of their meetings, I don’t know what they discuss. One would assume that a number of current issues of mutual interest would come up. But there’s nothing more I can do to accurately describe them.”
With Rumsfeld, “It’s a personal and professional acquaintance that they’ve maintained over the years,” Lawrence T. DiRita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday. “They see each other from time to time. That’s not unusual. It’s a meeting without an agenda. They enjoy each other’s company, they respect each other’s intellects, and it’s private — there’s no staff in there when they meet.”
Greenspan also has a personal connection with Wolfowitz, whose father was one of the chairman’s professors at Columbia University.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5074781/
September 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pmGreenspan retired in January. The housing bubble he created has yet another 30%-plus to fall.
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Well Greenspans policies were used to offer subprime mortgages but the fact is a lot of people benefited from those mortages. Housing prices climbed and so did real wealth.
The fact is people who are defaulting now on their loans, would have defaulted on them anyway. Federal laws limit the amount a persons mortgage can be raised, and at the most people saw a few hundred dollars a month more. Anyone who’default on a mortgage over a few hundred dollars, would have defaulted on it anyway. Period.
The fact is the housing crisis is NOT that bad. Mortgage companies are still writing loans and people are still buying homes. In fact, I predict a steady rise in home sales over the next year.
Watch.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pmace may rave, but he’s hardly a lunatic.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:54 pmMore and more people are going to see what a republican does to someone, who disagrees with them.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 4:43 p
I’m sorry BARTLEBEE but I cannot agree with your defense of Greenspan, the creator of the present real state meltdown . I sure hope you can convince me. I’m listening!
September 16th, 2007 at 4:55 pmThanks Sue.
Please identify any part of what I’ve posted that you disagree with so that we can discuss it, since ad hominem attack is basically bad form on message boards – and we should all be focused on the search for the entire truth.
If you have any facts or links to refute what I’ve posted, I’d appreciate you sharing them.
Swiftboating does not really accomplish much.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:57 pmThe fact is the housing crisis is NOT that bad. Mortgage companies are still writing loans and people are still buying homes. In fact, I predict a steady rise in home sales over the next year.
Watch.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
You’re on record. Apparently you haven’t been following the virtual bank run in London
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article2461206.ece
This is what a contagion looks like – and it’s growing.
REAL WEALTH is only attainable when you can convert your perceived assets into cash.
There is nothing more illiquid in the world than a condo in Miami. If your rich in Miami real estate, you’re screwed.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pmAnd regardless of anyones personal conspiracy theories, it does little good for the liberals and so called “progs” in here to jump to attack every person who turns on Bush.
The fact is less people are willing to step up and speak out, because they know people like you are going to bash them when they do.
“waa waa waa. You should have spoke up sooner… waa waa waa its too lote now….waa waa waaaa”. Enough already. Maybe its time to offer incentive to righties and others who are willing to either turn their support from Bush, or come off the fence, to join the ranks of those who speak out against him. Maybe its time to make them feel like they’ll be glad they did, instead of sorry they did.
Maybe its time to encourage dissent in the republican ranks, instead of discouraging it. That is if we really want the things we say we want.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pm“We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the hands of the few. We cannot have both.” — Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice from 1916-1939″
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” — Thomas Jefferson”
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe that there would be a revolution before morning. And that revolution would be based around the Federal Reserve.” –Henry Ford
September 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pmIn reading through the most recent piece by John Mauldin, the correlation of (mortgage backed) paper to real estate is apparent in one way.
The value of the paper is determined by the last price similar paper traded at. In the absence of an active market, all paper is subject to being priced by the most desperate fire sale price. All holders of paper are therefore holding their collective breaths, dependent on the worst case scenario fire sale wiping out much of the value of their formerly valuable paper. In essence, REAL estate was turned into fiat currency, in much the same way that the US Dollar (which used to be an actual receipt, redeemable for gold), was turned into paper, the value of which is always determined by the last price at which it traded in the market.
And so it goes with your house and every house in the neighborhood, in every neighborhood across the country. When the bankruptcies and foreclosures ripple through the system, and the bag-holders put those homes on the auction block, and there are few buyers, the value of your perfectly good home nearby will be determined by the worst case scenarios (now “comparables”) being fire-saled around you.
On the way up, all of the market participants and even Fed Chairman Greenspan were encouraging anyone with pulse to buy a home using any form of exotic (toxic) financing available. The entire system was encouraging the least credit worthy among us to lie about their income, and in turn, those liars were encouraging appraisers to lie about the value of the homes against which they were borrowing.
The ACTUAL blowup in the value of all this paper occurred in February, and would have led to a total collapse at that time. Who prevented the immediate collapse, and how? Who injected so much liquidity into the system that the APPEARANCE of the problem being solved enabled the APPEARANCE of normalcy in the market for this paper? The Fed (the oligarchs who own the biggest banks), literally “papered-over” the hole in the dike until such time as they could offload the majority of this toxic waste onto the bagholders of last resort, in precisely the same way they encouraged the poorest among us to literally sign their lives away on an overpriced home they could not afford (but not before they paid their politicians to eliminate any/all protection that a declaration of bankruptcy used to provide).
The big boys not only ALL knew this decline was imminent, but repositioned their bets in time to make a killing on the short side, and then positioned themselves for the short squeeze which Bernanke engineered yesterday, which they knew was coming, because the banksters at the top of the game are the ones telling Bernanke what to say, AND when to say it.
The “Federal” Reserve is not “Federal” – merely the richest guys in the world gaming the system to their benefit, and your deteriment. They all lied about the inflation rate and the unemployment rate and consumer confidence, and they all lied about the “Goldilocks” world economy. They literally lied about everything. It was all done with smoke and mirrors, and only THEY were the ones allowed to know the ACTUAL condition of every market.
The arrogance is brought into sharpest focus in the following, by writer Ron Suskind:
“In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
September 16th, 2007 at 5:07 pmThat is if we really want the things we say we want.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Quit w/ the lecturing. It’s gittin’ old.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:07 pmYou’re on record. Apparently you haven’t been following the virtual bank run in London
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ business/ industry_sectors/ banking_and_finance/ article2461206.ece
This is what a contagion looks like – and it’s growing.
REAL WEALTH is only attainable when you can convert your perceived assets into cash.
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
It has little to do with the housing market here in the US. The lenders ARE lending money, and homes ARE selling. The news has been all ablaze with the relatively moderate number of defaults which is almost exclusively reserved to the subprime mortage borrowers. People who were bad risks anyway. All thats happening is they are trimming the glut of subprime offerings and tightening up their screening processes and lending requirements. And when the fed lowers the interest rate tomorrow it will stimiulate a lending boom, which will in turn stimulate a selling boom, which will create more real wealth and drive the economy.
Naysayers of doom are half the problem and drive losses. Enough already. Its NOT that bad.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:08 pmI or any one of 20 friends of mine can go out tomorrow, buy a home with nothing but a signature and a bank statement, fix it up and sell it, make myself 50 grand and never spend a cent of my own money.
If we can still do that, then the housing markets not that bad.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:10 pmAnd I’ll quit w\the lecturing RoS, when people stop saying stupid sh1t.
Don’t like it, change the channel.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:12 pmIt has little to do with the housing market here in the US. The lenders ARE lending money, and homes ARE selling. The news has been all ablaze with the relatively moderate number of defaults which is almost exclusively reserved to the subprime mortage borrowers. People who were bad risks anyway. All thats happening is they are trimming the glut of subprime offerings and tightening up their screening processes and lending requirements. And when the fed lowers the interest rate tomorrow it will stimiulate a lending boom, which will in turn stimulate a selling boom, which will create more real wealth and drive the economy.
Naysayers of doom are half the problem and drive losses. Enough already. Its NOT that bad.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
That’s what wishful thinking looks like.
IF the Fed lowers the lending rate tomorrow, the US dollar on the global market will collapse, and those dollars that you have – that you base the value of your house by, will devalue at a rapid clip.
The Fed is screwed. They don’t have enough room to make MEANINGFUL cuts that would ignite the economy as you have predicted, and even if they did, the rest of the world would dump their dollars faster than you can say “Amero”
“It was supposed to be a blowout sale for home builder Standard Pacific Corp. For days, the Irvine company has been touting its “Mission: Possible” extravaganza in 49 communities throughout Southern California, with bonuses for buyers totaling as much as $20 million. Standard Pacific is aiming to sell 200 homes by offering mortgage loans with rates of less than 6% and other perks, including a free 42-inch plasma-screen television with every home purchase. But in Victorville on Friday, the blowout looked more like a washout. Only a trickle of potential buyers showed up on the first day of the 10-day event.
Like Standard Pacific, home builders around the country are hosting everything-must-go sales — complete with giveaways and promises of discounts so free-flowing that all homes would be unloaded in a weekend.”
Look at the TRUTH about the US Dollar – and watch what happens with the bank run in London on Monday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKblnX4TPFE
The US housing market is TOAST – as is the US economy and the US Dollar.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pmMaybe its time to make them feel like they’ll be glad they did, instead of sorry they did.
Maybe its time to encourage dissent in the republican ranks, instead of discouraging it. That is if we really want the things we say we want.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
And in the meantime, those who risked their wellbeing by saying and doing the right thing at the right time should be just forgotten, right? Do you know what a cynic is?
September 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pmI feel bad for the dead soldiers families that still support the lies now that the truth as to why their love ones died for greed by the White House for Iraq oil.
I feel badly for them too. Hanging onto some idealogical reason for occupying Iraq (like to bring them democracy) is the only way they can stay sane. If they knew that they sacrificed their son or daughter to steal Iraq’s oil, they would have a very hard time dealing with their loss.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:16 pmThis run on the banks is mortgage-related – and it has happened once before – with disasterous results:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6996053.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6997197.stm
September 16th, 2007 at 5:16 pmIf it is legal for Bush to kill innocent women and children for his petro and war profiteering cronies, there must not be a law against it.
Bush must be da world’s boy king.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:19 pmDon’t like it, change the channel.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
Bart, you’ve probably been told so many times, ya know the drill by heart, so I don’t even need ta tell ya what ta do.
As far as saying stupid stuff here, you used up your allowance a long time ago.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:19 pmACE. The housing market is stable. It will pick back up once the fed cuts the rate, and people stop crying about it. Once you guys stop scaring the investors, things will stabilize. Their was a bubble. We KNEW there was a bubble. We KNEW the bubble would “correct”. Thats all thats happening. Lenders tightened up “slightly”. Thats it.
Are you saying you cannot get a mortgage right now? Because no one I know is having any problem getting one. Stop predicting doom all the time.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:20 pmThe Short Road To Chaos And Destruction
An Expose of the Federal Reserve Banking System
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.”
Meyer Rothschild
Editor’s note: Navy Captain Gunther Russbacher is a 29 year veteran of the United States Intelligence Community, (Office of Naval Intelligence, attached to the Central Intelligence Agency). During all of that time he has operated as a deep black covert operative. In 1980 Captain Russbacher flew then vice-presidential candidate George Bush to a secret meeting near Paris in what has become known as “The October Surprise” scandal.
In 1989, Captain Russbacher violated direct orders and married, Rayelan Allan, an investigative researcher who was currently working to expose the October Surprise scandal. Captain Russbacher was arrested two days after their marriage and stayed incarcerated until December of 1993.
It is evident to all who are familiar with the Russbacher case that he was a political prisoner of the Bush administration. The following article was written from his prison cell in the Jefferson City Correctional Center in Missouri.
Captain Russbacher has been called the “Company Banker”. Because of this, he had to be knowledgeable about the banking system in the United States. Once he began studying the Federal Reserve, its origins and its global aspirations, he began to understand how three hundred families control the world. This article was written from memory, with a little help from friends at Langley Center.
The One World Monetary Cabal
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/chaos.htm
September 16th, 2007 at 5:20 pmAs far as saying stupid stuff here, you used up your allowance a long time ago.
Comment by TheRepublicofStupidity — September 16, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
I’m not the one sporting the word “stupid” in my handle.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:21 pmAnd in the meantime, those who risked their wellbeing by saying and doing the right thing at the right time should be just forgotten, right? Do you know what a cynic is?
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 16, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
You ever hear of the parable of the prodigal son?
Because you’d be perfect for the role of the older brother.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:23 pmAnd by the way. I’ve been decrying this war, and Bush, since the start of the Florida debaucle. And I’m not forgetting anyone. I’m just advising that if you want to win, you won’t hang every dissenter that comes our way, no matter how unsavory you find him.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pmGawd, would you guys stop bickering. And Ace, would you stop spamming this board with your three page cut and paste posts. Just sum it up in a couple of sentences and then link to where a reader can get more information if they want to. I stopped reading your posts a long time ago because I don’t have the will or the time to read your three page posts that you have cut and pasted here.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pmIf they knew that they sacrificed their son or daughter to steal Iraq’s oil, they would have a very hard time dealing with their loss.
Comment by bilbogaggins — September 16, 2007 @ 5:16
And neither you nor I would tell them so. We know what grief is and respect it so much.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:29 pmI’m not bickering bilbo. I’m recommending that people stop shooting the anti-war and impeachment efforts, by attacking every one who happens to step up late to the party.
Different people come to the truth at different times, and under different circumstances. All we can do is WELCOME their input, when the finally figure things out.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:29 pmAre you saying you cannot get a mortgage right now? Because no one I know is having any problem getting one. Stop predicting doom all the time.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Why would you purchase an asset at a price that is going to decline in a month? It’s not all about the ability to borrow, it’s about the wisdom of buying a depreciating asset – rather than waiting.
It appears you are in a state of serious denial about the housing market, or are simply inclined to ignore the actual data.
In the UK, housing prices fell 2.6% IN THE LAST MONTH. Annualize that!
In the US:
At the end of June, the latest period for which data is available, 15 of the 20 major metropolitan housing markets tracked by the S&P/Case-Shiller Housing indices were seeing declining prices, compared with a year earlier.
Housing inventories are at record highs:
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2007/09/05/more-cheery-housing-charts
As is the price of oil.
Real inflation is on a tear, while home declining home values have ENDED the practice of borrowing against the (perceived) equity in homes.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:31 pmWell, if Gates doesn’t believe that both Gulf wars were based on oil, then it must not be true, because surely one of Bush’s puppets wouldn’t lie about what the reason for both wars is.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:32 pmIf every right winger, neocon, wingnut and fence-sitter out there, thinks that if he decides to speak up now, that all we’re going to do is attack them, then that doesn’t really give them much incentive to speak up, now does it?
You can be right, or you can be smart.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:33 pmDifferent people come to the truth at different times, and under different circumstances. All we can do is WELCOME their input, when the finally figure things out.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
In a way I agree with you, but I find it odd that most of these people don’t have their “come to jesus” moment until they are getting ready to release a book they wrote. I am glad that they are finally speaking the truth, but I will NOT give them credit for it if they are doing it to sell books.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:34 pmthat all we’re going to do is attack them, then that doesn’t really give them much incentive to speak up, now does it?
You can be right, or you can be smart.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
They really don’t care if we attack them. All they are trying to do is to sell books. The more notorious you become, the better your book will sell. Look at OJ for gods sake. “If I did it” (of course he did) is #2 on Amazon.com’s best seller list.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:38 pmWhy would you purchase an asset at a price that is going to decline in a month?
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Because its not going to decline in a month. Housing prices are remaining fairly steady and when lenders get a break they’ll start to climb again. There is always fluctuation in the market, and different areas see different results.
But no one is going bankrupt right now, other than people who should have never been given a mortgage in the first place, simply because they couldn’t afford it, and they should have known they couldn’t afford it because it encompassed more than half their current income potential.
The market fed will cut the rate, and the housing market will steady, as long as Bush stays out of it, and the rest of you quit crying about it.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:39 pmOh, I forgot to mention, Alan Greenspan’s book is #1 on Amazon’s top seller list. He will be happy for all the publicity he can get, either positive or negative.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:40 pmThey really don’t care if we attack them.
Comment by bilbogaggins — September 16, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Everyone cares if you attack them.
No one likes being attacked.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:40 pmby attacking every one who happens to step up late to the party.
Different people come to the truth at different times, and under different circumstances. All we can do is WELCOME their input, when the finally figure things out.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
When you see injustice, protest it right then and there. Don’t wait until it becomes a concentration camp before you do so. But, that’s only me!
September 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pmGregg and Mary Mullins, 70-year-old retirees living near Fort Myers, learned that the hard way.
Last month, they finally rented out the two-story $885,500 penthouse they closed on last year in Blue, a concave tower overlooking Biscayne Bay. But the $2,800-a-month rent they’re collecting is less than half their monthly mortgage payment, maintenance fees and property taxes. Yet, as Mary Mullins said, something is better than nothing.
The couple never planned to live in the condo, but jumped at buying it at pre-construction prices in 2004 after friends shared a familiar story.
“They said they made lots of money, so they told us to try it and maybe we could make lots of money, too,” Mary Mullins said. “But that didn’t happen. We don’t know what happened.”
September 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pmEveryone cares if you attack them.
No one likes being attacked.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
You actually think that Alan Greenspan gives a flying fu(k what we think about him? Why would he. He’s rich and getting richer by the minute with his book sales. I do believe he cares what historians think about him because he is trying to blame the whole sub-prime mess on Bush. But historians are not stupid. They will judge Greenspan on his entire career including his participation in pushing the sub-prime mortgages.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pmWhen you see injustice, protest it right then and there. Don’t wait until it becomes a concentration camp before you do so. But, that’s only me!
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 16, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
No. I think thats pretty much what all good folks do.
But no ones debating that strawman.
And you know that. You know what I am saying.
In a time of war, often we get defectors. In fact, we have millions of them in Bagdhad right now. We “embrace” defectors. Why? Because they are valuable assets that can prove more valuable than anyone on our team already.
So once more.
You can either be right, or you can be smart.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:45 pmThe market fed will cut the rate, and the housing market will steady, as long as Bush stays out of it, and the rest of you quit crying about it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
I certainly hope you are right because if I don’t sell my house in the next two weeks, I will not be able to move into my new home in my cohousing community. All I have worked for for 2 years will go down the drain thanks to Bush and Greenspan. I live in an area that is pretty much immune to price fluctuation’s and softening sales of houses, but I have heard from many people “in the know” that this is the worst sellers market they have ever seen.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:46 pmsub-prime mortgages.
Comment by bilbogaggins — September 16, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Those subprime mortgages were designed to give people a helping hand who might otherwise not have access to real wealth. And the real story here is more of those mortgages are NOT being reniged on, than are. Oh but we won’t hear that one on the news, because its not incendiary. And we won’t hear it from you, because it doesn’t fit into your prophet of doom persona.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm“They said they made lots of money, so they told us to try it and maybe we could make lots of money, too,†Mary Mullins said. “But that didn’t happen. We don’t know what happened.â€
Comment by ace
What happened is that they got greedy and they are paying for it now. Anyone who would pay that much for housing, with Bush as our President destroying our economy day by day is really stupid.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:51 pmThe market fed will cut the rate, and the housing market will steady, as long as Bush stays out of it, and the rest of you quit crying about it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Three million American industrial jobs outsourced so that Greenscam can write a book and others talk about not “crying”. In my book, he should be tried and hanged!
September 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pmLORDS OF ILLUSION
-a poem of observance
Castatatatatatatatatatatat..!!
Ok, just tell me why?
For all the attention my question gets
Ah mus’ be talkin’ wid a whrlin’ drrv’sh
For Goodness sake! So says the grape’s vine
Krisessakes! As are other’s wont to say
Where is the end of the end
Of the end of the end ..ok..in this thing?
..You may have the cheek to ask
“Wrapped in illusion” says hawkish Murtha
Wrapped _with_ illusion is more apt
The child always knows its way home
Whose agenda? Whose deals? Whose ideals? With whom?
die amerikanische Bevölkerung?
la foule américaine?
el populacho americano?
The American Populace?
Who sent you? On behalf of whom do you speak?
Jeopardy tune.. for a spell
Their Jekyll proffers: We need to persist in war
Their Hyde returns: Yeu’l got’ be out ya’er mind
These guys make George Orwell
Look like the author of: “My Pet Goat”..ok
I am woefully befuddled
But am I?..the substrate asks
Unutterable, eh?
“It is all for the ‘vital interest’”
But why, oh why?
Well, el populacho americano
Should provide the hint
la foule américaine gets a piece of the action
Decides if the “vital interests” are a worthy expense
“Hey, talk about troop reductions more”
“Right O..over here in this time-warp right here”
See..I told you. Wasn’t that fun?
Good..good! Now gimme 300 billion dollars more!
James Saville Row9/16/07 circa NOW: 17:58pm
September 16th, 2007 at 5:54 pmSomewhere, YOUESAIYY!
If you think housing prices will only go up…you can’t lose and you should buy now. If you think prices are headed down, you will wait if you can for a better deal.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pmI’m in the midwest, and I see lots of former beanfields with roads and electicity , phone, and cable tv peds installed, and one or two houses on them. Dead in the water.
In a way I agree with you, but I find it odd that most of these people don’t have their “come to jesus†moment until they are getting ready to release a book they wrote. I am glad that they are finally speaking the truth, but I will NOT give them credit for it if they are doing it to sell books.
Comment by bilbogaggins — September 16, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
I’m not defending anyones motives or moral character for that matter. I’m saying how about we leave that to Jesus or Buddha or someone, and we stick to the matter at hand, like winning?
And the military doesn’t entice a defector by promising to beat him up once he defects. They might threaten to beat him up if he won’t defect, but not once he does. See that wouldn’t make sense.
Just as little sense as it makes to take the story off of Greenspans unexpected and damning critique of the Bush administration, and turn it into an attempt at discrediting him.
Usually lawyers don’t try to discredit their own witnesses. Not the smarter ones anyway.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pmThose subprime mortgages were designed to give people a helping hand who might otherwise not have access to real wealth. And the real story here is more of those mortgages are NOT being reniged on, than are. Oh but we won’t hear that one on the news, because its not incendiary. And we won’t hear it from you, because it doesn’t fit into your prophet of doom persona.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
You are implying that the language you posted above is factually accurate.
It’s not.
Exotic mortgages were created by greedy bastards who wanted every last person with a pulse to sign up for cheap credit, so they could make their fees and commissions – knowing full well that they were entrapping people into loans they had no business signing for.
This:
“Those subprime mortgages were designed to give people a helping hand who might otherwise not have access to real wealth.”
Is total bullshit. Anyone who signed up for a subprime mortgage for the purpose of obtaining “access to real wealth” – was sold a bill of goods.
If it sounds too good to be true – it probably is.
“Real Wealth” is earned.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pm“And we won’t hear it from you, because it doesn’t fit into your prophet of doom persona.
Comment by BARTLEBEE ”
Excuse me, please point out where I have been a “prophet of doom”. All I have done is talk about my worries about the economy and selling my house. Even if the housing crisis had not hit, sooner or later we are going to have to start paying back China and that is when the shit is going to hit the fan. There, I have been a “prophet of doom”.
One of the reasons why I am moving into a cohousing community is that I know that we have reached Peak oil and I expect our economy to truly tank in the next couple of years. Living with other people with whom you share resources seems like a smart thing to do these days.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:57 pmWell, in my eyes US troops are currently rotting in Iraq and their reliance on air strikes rose dramatically.
Bush used preemptive warfare and reasons for war that werent verifiable before the war by other entities than bush himself
Preemptive warfare creates holes cause u kill people ahead that might be important for a structure afterwards.
bush doesnt have a filler, because his reasons for war, especially the wmd thing, are totally inaccurate.
so u got the hillarious combination of troops that got to be smart to chase car bombers, despite rotting around, holes in iraqi structure and bad propaganda.
I mean the oil thing is another disadvantage and its really cute greenspan mentions it. i think he should receive the smartship medal of honour.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:58 pmI’m in the midwest, and I see lots of former beanfields with roads and electicity , phone, and cable tv peds installed, and one or two houses on them. Dead in the water.
Comment by Badger — September 16, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Yea well if I was buying homes in Dustbowl USA, I’d probably be strapped too. But the fact is the market in most major cities other than the disaster that is Florida, the housing market is fine. A few corrections in some areas, but for the most part, just fine.
September 16th, 2007 at 5:58 pmOne of the reasons why I am moving into a cohousing community is that I know that we have reached Peak oil and I expect our economy to truly tank in the next couple of years.
Comment by bilbogaggins — September 16, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
:|
Sounds pretty prophetically doomy-like to me.
By the way, whats a “co-housing” community?
September 16th, 2007 at 6:00 pmIs total bullshit. Anyone who signed up for a subprime mortgage for the purpose of obtaining “access to real wealth†– was sold a bill of goods.
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Bullsh1t. You’re preaching from a book you read, clearly not from experience. Real wealth means equity, and all you need for that is a keen eye, a little hard work and the means to pay the mortgage. If the raise of 3 or 4 hundred bucks until you can refi is enough to send you into default, then you would have defaulted anyway, the first time some unexpected expense required the about of a few hundred dollars a month.
The media’s playing you guys like a cheap banjo.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:05 pmI’m not saying there aren’t issues with the economy. Bush has basically brought it to a slow. But things were better than good before.
Now they’re just good.
And with each passing month, as we get closer and closer to the 08 election, and the prospect of a democrat President, investors will become more and more bold, and in December of 08, when a democrat has already been elected, we’ll see such a boom that it will blow your mind. Just like it did in 1996 when investors saw Bill Clinton was keeping his job.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:09 pmBartlebee:
Did you not read this – or are you simply in denial?
“At the end of June, the latest period for which data is available, 15 of the 20 major metropolitan housing markets tracked by the S&P/Case-Shiller Housing indices were seeing declining prices, compared with a year earlier.”
That’s 3/4 of all major housing markets in decline – yet you say this:
But the fact is the market in most major cities other than the disaster that is Florida, the housing market is fine. A few corrections in some areas, but for the most part, just fine.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Are you the housing expert, or are they?
September 16th, 2007 at 6:11 pmAce, Pretty top-flight stuff. Keep it up!
September 16th, 2007 at 6:12 pmBy the way, whats a “co-housing†community?
Comment by BARTLEBEE
A cohousing community is a community built with knowing your neighbors and sharing resources in mind. We are 34 families who have built a community of 34 townhomes and flats and a 3,500 sq. ft. common house where we will share meals and meet to spend time with each other. We are multi-generational from 6 months to 76 years old. We built green and are very conscious of making the smallest footprint possible on this earth. It’s going to be a challenge because I will no longer have a garage for all the junk I have accumulated over the years (I’m a certifiable pack rat).
But the fact is the market in most major cities other than the disaster that is Florida, the housing market is fine. A few corrections in some areas, but for the most part, just fine.
I’m sure that people in California would love to know that the housing market is just fine. It’s certainly not fine for them. And I live in Oregon where downturns in housing is usually not a problem, but it’s a real problem this time.
I certainly hope that you are right about our economy, but I don’t see how we can sustain our economy under current circumstances. One of the things that has been driving our economy for the last 5-6 years was people cashing out their equity in their homes to buy things. But, for most people the equity is gone and they no longer have extra money to spend.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:13 pm“
Bartlebee:
Did you not read this – or are you simply in denial?
At the end of June, the latest period for which data is available, 15 of the 20 major metropolitan housing markets tracked by the S&P/Case-Shiller Housing indices were seeing declining prices, compared with a year earlier.â€
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
I read it ace. And I addressed it several times.
Its called a market correction, and it we were predicting it for the last 2 years.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:13 pmThe media’s playing you guys like a cheap banjo.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Anybody smell a real state/used car salesman here? I do.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:15 pmMarket prices were over inflated. They HAD to level off. And that will show up on some entry level journalists bar graph as a “DECLINE”.
And then when some entry level journalist gets ahold of that “decline” statistic, he starts crying the sky is falling and using words like “housing slump”. That in turns chills investors, which in turns causes sellers to drop prices even more, and so on.
In other words, a housing slump, or any economic slump or recession, can become a self fullfilling prophecy.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:16 pm“and the prospect of a democrat President”
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Ok, you have been brainwashed by the Republicans. It is not “the prospect of a democrat President”, it is “the prospect of a President who is a Democrat”.
It makes me crazy when the Republicans do that, please don’t let us start doing it too.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:17 pmAnybody smell a real state/used car salesman here? I do.
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 16, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
I am neither. I work in technology.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:17 pm#
Is total bullshit. Anyone who signed up for a subprime mortgage for the purpose of obtaining “access to real wealth†– was sold a bill of goods.
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Bullsh1t. You’re preaching from a book you read, clearly not from experience. Real wealth means equity, and all you need for that is a keen eye, a little hard work and the means to pay the mortgage. If the raise of 3 or 4 hundred bucks until you can refi is enough to send you into default, then you would have defaulted anyway, the first time some unexpected expense required the about of a few hundred dollars a month.
The media’s playing you guys like a cheap banjo.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Experience?
My experience in buying and selling my own homes over the past 12 years has resulted in a net gain in every case – always sold by owner – IN ONE DAY – foregoing the 6% realtor commission. One of these homes I designed and built myself, and sold it for $900,000. Don’t presume to know about my experience.
I sold out of the real estate market over three years ago anticipating virtually everything that has transpired. The last house I flipped netted me a 50% return in just 2.5 years. Yes, I missed the top of the market by RENTING A HOME RATHER THAN BUYING INTO THE HYPERINFLATION CREATED BY GREENSPAN – but when the music stopped and the game was over, I had the luxury not to worry about it.
I RENT a 4 bedroom 4 bath house with a two car garage, a block from the beach in a very nice neighborhood – for which I pay $2,100 per month – LESS THAN THE ANNUAL PROPERTY TAXES.
Don’t presume to know anything about my level of experience.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:19 pmAnd up thru the ground came a bubbling brew
September 16th, 2007 at 6:20 pmBlack gold, Texas tea, oil that is..
Ok, you have been brainwashed by the Republicans. It is not “the prospect of a democrat Presidentâ€, it is “the prospect of a President who is a Democratâ€.
It makes me crazy when the Republicans do that, please don’t let us start doing it too.
Comment by bilbogaggins — September 16, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
:|
The prospect of a democrat President or a President who is a democrat?
Last time I checked, those meant the same things.
Now if you’re trying to imply something about the nature of the democrat who is running, then fine, then say so.
But I made no assertations in that area either way, and I merely stated that the market will improve at the prospect of ANY democratic Presidential candidate being elected, after 8 years of Bush.
Watch.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:20 pmblah blah blah caps caps caps blah blah blah …..I RENT a 4 bedroom 4 bath house with a two car garage, a block from the beach in a very nice neighborhood – for which I pay $2,100 per month – LESS THAN THE ANNUAL PROPERTY TAXES.
Don’t presume to know anything about my level of experience.
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Great. Then you of all people should know better than shooting yourself in the foot, and anyone in this field who doesn’t know that a market slump can be fueled by people shooting their mouths off about it, doesn’t need to be in this field.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:22 pmI am neither. I work in technology.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
So, what is it about Greenscam that attracts you so much?
September 16th, 2007 at 6:23 pmi recall the letter to Clintstone from Pea Knack had earl in it.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:24 pmSo, what is it about Greenscam that attracts you so much?
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 16, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
I will answer your question with a question.
Which part of “I am not defending him, but his message” didn’t you get?
September 16th, 2007 at 6:24 pmBartlebee:
Rather than sitting around here cheer leading a dead real estate market – why aren’t you out snapping up all those “bargains?”
The market inflation was the direct result of people “shooting their mouths off” on CNBS and all over the popular media. that’s where their bread was buttered, by the mortgage lenders and banksters advertising on their networks and in their magazines.
The relentless cheer leading and lies is what led to the hyperinflationary bubble, which is nowhere near fully deflating.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
This was not a normal market phenomenon – it was a con game.
You may be one of them.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:28 pmAll I have been saying, other than stop trying to help down the market by decrying it to the masses, is to stop trying to defeat our efforts to beat George Bush, by decrying anyone who dares to speak up late in the game.
We need those people. Let Jesus judge em.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:28 pmRather than sitting around here cheer leading a dead real estate market – why aren’t you out snapping up all those “bargains?â€
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
How do you know I’m not sparky?
September 16th, 2007 at 6:29 pmwho doesn’t know that a market slump can be fueled by people shooting their mouths off about it, -BartleBee
Yet the market uses every hurricane to raise oil prices due to speculation. Naw, I disagree, sweeping it under the rug isn’t gonna make it go away.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:30 pmMake sure you get the mineral rights to any property you buy…
September 16th, 2007 at 6:31 pmYou may be one of them.
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
I’m not “one” of anyone. I’m just someone who sees the same thing happening that has happened several times before in my half century here on the planet. A market correction.
And for such a saavy investor, the realtors in DC would have a pretty good chuckle at hearing you talk as if we didn’t see this correction coming.
Hell we’ve been talking about it for two years.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:31 pm#
Rather than sitting around here cheer leading a dead real estate market – why aren’t you out snapping up all those “bargains?â€
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
How do you know I’m not sparky?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
Rather than being coy, why not reveal your present real estate holdings, and what you are ACTUALLY doing in the real estate market.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pmAnd check the angle of attack of any rig in your neighborhood, they could be poking you in the bottom without yer knowin’ it…
September 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pmNaw, I disagree, sweeping it under the rug isn’t gonna make it go away.
Comment by Earl Derrick — September 16, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
No ones sweeping nothing under the rug. We’ve been predicting this housing market correction for the last two years.
Don’t know where you guys were at when we were, but apparently you were out of the loop.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pmHell we’ve been talking about it for two years.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Its all BartleBees Fault!! 8^p
September 16th, 2007 at 6:34 pmRather than being coy, why not reveal your present real estate holdings, and what you are ACTUALLY doing in the real estate market.
Comment by ace — September 16, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
uhhh, because I’m not a moron who puts personal identifying information out on the world wide web for every nutjob to see?
September 16th, 2007 at 6:34 pmDon’t know where you guys were at when we were, but apparently you were out of the loop.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Naw, I knew about it a while back.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:35 pmThen why are you cryin about it now?
September 16th, 2007 at 6:37 pmHeck, I’ve been predicting the end of civilization as we know it for YEARS…
September 16th, 2007 at 6:38 pmBut does anyone listen?
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo…
Chimpinomics is about to exact its toll on the US.
Gore Vidal and Molly Ivins warned us about this feeble minded legacy but so few listened.
Now the Bill is coming due for George W. last frat party.
-GSD
September 16th, 2007 at 6:40 pmComment by Fr. Vivion O’Blivion — September 16, 2007
I been saying it since 70AD!
September 16th, 2007 at 6:41 pmWell ya got me, I wasn’t arraigned, pardon me, ordained, till 1347.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:44 pmComment by Fr. Vivion O’Blivion — September 16, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
Welcome…!
September 16th, 2007 at 6:44 pm“I am not defending him, but his message†didn’t you get?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
What is his message? Please, tell me.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:46 pmNow the Bill is coming due for George W. last frat party.
-GSD
CAIRO!
September 16th, 2007 at 6:46 pmBless you, applebeebee de bee bee dee dee dee dee dum de rum tum…. huh?
September 16th, 2007 at 6:47 pmWhere was I?
Is it Monday yet?
Well, harrummphh, if we ban alcohol, we could probably go without oil.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:49 pmMaybe Secretary Gates should tune into BBC on the Iraq Oil issue!
See por ejemplo:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
September 16th, 2007 at 6:52 pmOf course oil was part of the rational and thats not a bad thing. We need it like we need food. Its supply is necessary for our national security.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:55 pmComment by Fr. Vivion O’Blivion — September 16, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Almost there, Frater.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:55 pmWhat is his message? Please, tell me.
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 16, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
uhh, try scrolling up to the top of the thread.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:56 pmI meant “Rationel” sorry.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:57 pmWho would have known that Alan Greenspan is a dirty f*cking hippy. It was blood for oil after all.
I thought we invaded for the olives.
-GSD
September 16th, 2007 at 6:57 pmwhich troll does this sound like?:
“Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has long identified himself as an Episcopalian, said this weekend that he is a Baptist and has been for years.”
September 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pmThink about it folks. What do we need right now more than anything else?
We need defectors. THATS what we need.
Particularly in congress but we need it at all levels.
The reason we can’t bring our troops home, is because we don’t have enough defectors and fence
So doesn’t anyone find it just a little self defeating to bash every single defector that comes our way?
You can be right, or you can be smart.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:00 pmI would think all would know by now the invasion/massacre now occupation has been over oil. My question is: How many are OK with this?
September 16th, 2007 at 7:01 pmAnd I am going to guess our society has degenerated to the point that this number is high.
Think about it folks. What do we need right now more than anything else?
Bong Hits for Jeebus!
September 16th, 2007 at 7:05 pmBREAKING: MUKASEY
http://ccoaler.blogspot.com/2007/09/breakingmukasey-nominated-for-ag.html
September 16th, 2007 at 7:16 pmThe reason we can’t bring our troops home, is because we don’t have enough defectors and fence
You can be right, or you can be smart.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Or, maybe it’s because there are so many people sitting on that fence post. Does it hurt?
September 16th, 2007 at 7:22 pmHelp spread the word about what Greenspan said.
Simply watch this short video, rate it 5 stars, favorite it and comment on it. This all helps get even more people to hear the truth because it move the video up the ranks.
That is the mission of Representative Press, let people know what is going on. See video: “The Iraq War is largely about OIL.” – Alan Greenspan
September 16th, 2007 at 7:22 pmWhat is his message? Please, tell me.
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 16, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
See folks? The reason the democrats struggle is because we have so many who like this guy, can’t see the forest for the trees. Here is this guy, so clearly worked up about bashing Greenspan, that he misses alltogehter, that a mainstream moderate who has support on both sides and who seldom speaks out politically has openly stated the obvious that no one in the MSM dared to suggest.
That the Iraq war was for oil.
This was a earthshattering 6 words for the Bush administration, and rather than drive the point home, and slam dunk the ball, everyone just wants to slam the messenger.
And we wonder why we lose.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:26 pmTwo events, the firing of Gen. Jay Garner and the firing of all the Sunni Baathists after Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, are definitely Iraqi oil related.
Gen. Garner, the pre-war choice of the Joint Chiefs, and relatively moderate Republicans like Secretary of State Colin Powell, to head post-war Iraqi reconstruction, was going to keep in place most of Saddam Hussein’s pre-war infrastructure and personnel, while going after the top-level Sunni Baathist leadership in Saddam’s regime.
Unfortunately, following Bush starting hostilities in March 2003, someone in the White House changed this pre-war strategy, fired Gen. Jay Garner and put Paul Bremer (a rabid neo-con Republican PNACist) in charge.
Bremer immediately scrapped the pre-war plan previously agreed to by many top-level people in the Bush administration and fired all the Sunni Baathists.
Bremer established the de-Baathification office, put his pal Ahmed Chalabi in charge of this Shia “revenge” office, and started purging all Sunni Baathists in Iraq’s post-war government, military and police…dovetailing perfectly with the long-sought revenge of Shiite Iranian leaders next door against their long-hated Sunni Baathist enemies in Iraq.
Bremer also ordered a halt to all Saddam-era government assistance programs, like the food “handout” program that had put food in the mouths of all Iraqi citizens, both Sunni and Shia.
So, Iraq’s Sunni Baathists (after Bremer and pre-war Iraqi exiles like Ahmed Chalabi went on a purging spree) had a stark choice offered them…either flee or fight. Many fled. Many also stayed inside Iraq to fight. Thus, the current horrific situation inside Iraq, partially caused by disinherited Sunnis fighting for what they once controlled and complemented by warring Shia factions fighting over the same thing…Iraq’s oil revenues.
You see, someone decided (Cheney? Bremer? Chalabi? Wolfowitz? Feith? Cambone? Iran’s hardcore Islamists?) that all the Sunni Baathists in Iraq had to be punished. All the Sunnis, all these men, women and children, had to be frozen out of participating in the post-Saddam Iraq envisioned by a few radical, revenge-seeking conservatives in Washington, in the CPA under Bremer in Baghdad and in Teheran.
And since oil is the primary revenue-generating source for all Iraqis, then these conservative fools decided that no Iraqi Sunni Baathists would ever again receive any benefits at all from Iraqi oil revenues. Even Saddam Hussein wasn’t that hard-hearted. He even shared Iraq’s oil revenues with the Shia, and although not as much as he did with his fellow Baathists, Saddam Hussein didn’t totally freeze out the Shia.
Yes, Saddam Hussein, being a ruthless dictator, used Iraq’s oil revenues as part of a reward-and-punishment system to keep himself and the Baathists in power,…but, but,…wait, isn’t this exactly what the Bush administration and his cadre of ruthless neo-con Republicans have been trying to do (and doing) in Washington? Freezing out the Democrats (or anyone else that’s “agin ‘em”), making a complete mockery of our democracy by their ruthless neo-con actions?
Oh, it all now becomes quite clear. Bush starting the war, firing Gen. Garner, putting Bremerr in charge of the CPA, the ruthless de-Baathification program…and the condition Iraq is in today. None of what has transpired since March 2003 (and even earlier, January 2001) looks anything like that which would help foster a “free and democratic” framework in any “liberated” society…whether in Iraq or the United States of America.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:27 pmIf I didn’t know better, I’d say this was a case of name jacking by the other side, trying to throw the focus off this damning revelation from the former fedchair.
I was wondering why there were no trolls here tonight, and now I see why.
They must’ve figured we were doing a good enough job on our own.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:29 pmThat is the mission of Representative Press, let people know what is going on. See video: “The Iraq War is largely about OIL.†– Alan Greenspan
Comment by Tom — September 16, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
The VietNam war was about ……………who the hell cares! When are we going to stop making heroes of our own victimizers? Who’s next: Henry Kissinger?
September 16th, 2007 at 7:31 pmWho’s making a hero out of Greenspan? We’re just saying his word carries a lot of weight. And him coming out and saying the Iraq war was for oil, in print, is a milestone.
Thanks for trying to defleat the power of that message.
A message that desperately needs to reach middle America.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:34 pmTwo fish were swimming along in a little stream that suddenly dumped them into the ocean, where they found themselves suddenly surrounded by all sorts of strange sea creatures. The one fish looked to the other fish and said, “with friends like these, who needs anemones?”.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:36 pmSadrists leave Shia block
September 16th, 2007 at 7:37 pmAnyone else having technical difficulties? I posted it didnt show. I waited posted it again. It didnt show for a few minutes with both posts showing then both dispapeared.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:37 pmWe’re just saying his word carries a lot of weight.
A lot of weight for whom? Please, explain.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:42 pmNow they are back. This is messed up.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:45 pmComment by Troll
maybe it’s your screen name
September 16th, 2007 at 7:45 pmAnother Bushivite “cutsey” game name: Operation Iraqi Liberartion better known with the acronym: OIL. It might be time for another deck of cards, Chimpy!
September 16th, 2007 at 7:48 pmGreenspan: House Prices to Fall Significantly
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/31207860-647f-11dc-90ea-0000779fd2ac.html
The economic pain for many people that bought homes over past few yrs is going to get severe.
No more MEW, cut backs on consumer spending, it’s going to get ugly for US economy and recession is coming.
Bullshit economics and bubbles, tax cuts for the rich, spending like a drunken sailor, and going to war is all attributed to Bushco.
That’s what ALL Dems should be saying because they will be cleaning up this asshats mess for at least a decade.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:49 pmFroth consists of lots of little bubbles.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:51 pmComment by Fr. Vivion O’Blivion — September 16, 2007 @ 7:45
Your moniker is the best laugh I have had in the last 20 years, thanks!
September 16th, 2007 at 7:53 pmI guess Greenspan didn’t speak out years ago because it wasn’t in his personal interest. He didn’t have a book coming out then!
To think this invasion and occupation was about something other than OIL—you have to really be bending over backwards believing all sorts of BS that simply does not add up to any halfway reasonable person.
Iraq and Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. Bin Laden and his men were obviously in Pakistan (a country with nuclear weapons, a dictator, and long-time supporter of al Qaeda). Saddam was the enemy of bin Laden. Bin Laden wanted to fight against Saddam in Gulf War I.
Everyone in the Bush administration was from the oil industry. PNAC and the Pentagon wrote that we should take control of the Middle East because of the importance of oil. The US and the British overthrew Iran’s popular democratic government in 1953 because they nationalized the oil.
The Downing Street Memo told us that the policy of invasion was set and the evidence would be made up later.
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and sits in between #1 Saudi Arabia and #3 Iran. The White House is beating the drums for a war with Iran. The US consumes 25% of the world’s energy.
Every reason given for the invasion and occupation has proven to be wrong. The only reason left is the oil. Every time a reason has been proven to be wrong or no longer fits (like regime change) the White House makes up another one. It’s really not believable to 70% of Americans or 90% of Iraqis.
September 16th, 2007 at 7:56 pmA lot of weight for whom? Please, explain.
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 16, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
I already did braindead.
Try reading my posts instead of responding with your innane one liners.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pmOn CNN’s Late Edition, Cong. Mike Pence (R-IN) said that one reason we had to invade was because Saddam wouldn’t let the weapons inspectors in. Of course, Blitzer let him getaway with this for the one hundreth time. He couldn’t possibly say “that’s not true—-Iraq did let the inspectors in”!
September 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pmIt’s really not believable to 70% of Americans or 90% of Iraqis.
Comment by Keith — September 16, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Well, Is that really important? We wil know very soon. Just you wait and see!
September 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pmTry reading my posts instead of responding with your innane one liners.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
You don’t like one-liners, why?
September 16th, 2007 at 8:21 pmI didn’t say I didn’t like one liners. When they’re intelligent, humorous or informed they’re great.
When they’re mundane attempts from a guy that lost a debate an hour ago to remain pertinent, then they’re just boring.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:23 pmFrom the infamous PNAC letter to Clinton:
“It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction… the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.â€
If there was no oil in Iraq, there would have been no war.
Your president deceived you.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:24 pmAnd the fact that you persist in them, instead of working to shift focus back to the actual thread topic, that is the Greenspan admittal that the Iraq war is for oil, I can only conclude you are one of our resident trolls, incog-neato.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:27 pmWell, Is that really important? We wil know very soon. Just you wait and see!
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 16, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
You are going to have explain what that means. I thought the current strategy stays until Jan 20, 2009.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:40 pmWhen they’re mundane attempts from a guy that lost a debate an hour ago to remain pertinent, then they’re just boring.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
What debate are you talking about? I haven’t debated you on anything, except asking you to tell us why you become so hot under the collar when you hear criticism about Greenscam or Kissinger. What is it that makes you so sensitive? Please, explain.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:45 pmThe prospect of a democrat President or a President who is a democrat?
Last time I checked, those meant the same things.
Now if you’re trying to imply something about the nature of the democrat who is running, then fine, then say so.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
They do mean the same, but one is proper English and the other isn’t. What I was trying to say is that the Republicans have been calling us the Democrat party instead of the Democratic party to try to demean the party. I just don’t like seeing Democrats pick up on it. I’m fairly sure you meant no harm with it, but if we start doing it too, we are giving in to them demeaning us. It’s like when I call them the Republic party instead of the Republican party. I mean it as an insult just like they mean it as an insult when they call us the Democrat party. Actually the proper way to say what you were trying to say is “the prospect of a Democratic President”.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:52 pmYour moniker is the best laugh I have had in the last 20 years, thanks!
Comment by JoeCaribe
Thanks, and to give credit where credit is due, it is from a Frank Zappa tune.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:55 pmFather Vivion O’Blivion from the parish of St. Alphonso, renowned for their pancake breakfasts….
Of course oil was part of the rational and thats not a bad thing. We need it like we need food. Its supply is necessary for our national security.
Comment by Troll
It’s not a bad thing to invade a country in order to steal their oil? We knew that Peak Oil was coming and we ignored it. We are now on the decline in our oil production and if we don’t wean ourselves soon, we will be fighting with China, Russia and every other country for the dwindling oil resources. So, which makes more sense, weaning ourselves from fossil fuels through technological advances or entering into a state of perpetual war. I know what your answer will be, perpetual war….because it makes the war profiteers rich.
September 16th, 2007 at 8:56 pm30% of Germany’s energy comes from renewables and they are working on making it a lot more. They are investing a lot into solar. The US is being left behind because everyone in the White House is from the oil industry.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:04 pmOf course oil was part of the rational and thats not a bad thing. We need it like we need food. Its supply is necessary for our national security.
Comment by Troll
Then it would be ok for Mexicans to invade the US in order to get some blondies…
Oh, wait, thats not necessary, I forgot Cancun.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:10 pmThen it would be ok for Mexicans to invade the US in order to get some blondies…
Oh, wait, thats not necessary, I forgot Cancun.
Comment by Juan C — September 16, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
Who says we’re not ready for prime time?
September 16th, 2007 at 9:33 pmFlip flop for Tom Lantos.
He was all gung ho about going into Iraq like he was back in ‘91 and now all of a sudden he says this was a mistake and was about the oil???? Sounds like he’s covering his ass to be honest.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:35 pm“I wasn’t here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war,†Gates said.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:37 pmWhy don’t you go ask Darth?
What, you afraid he’s going to tell you to go Fu(k yourself?
Once again the troll proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the reichwing hasn’t a clue about moral values.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:38 pmHere’s the map from Cheney’s Energy Task Force, March 2001, showing Iraq divided into “exploration blocks”.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/466503255_f7bb4d5e85_o.jpg
September 16th, 2007 at 9:41 pmWould it be okay for Canada to invade us for better weather or for Britain to invade France for better food and wine?
September 16th, 2007 at 9:43 pmhaven’t debated you on anything, except asking you to tell us why you become so hot under the collar when you hear criticism about Greenscam or Kissinger. What is it that makes you so sensitive? Please, explain.
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 16, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Nice try Jimbob.
Simpleminded drones in a blog seldom get me “hot under the collar”.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:58 pmAll I did was “recommend” that you folks stop shooting down every defector or fence-sitter that speaks up.
It was you guys who took umbrage at that.
I merely pointed out the stupidity of that strategy.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:59 pmWould it be okay for Canada to invade us for better weather or for Britain to invade France for better food and wine?
Comment by Keith — September 16, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Yes.
Sure it’s ok.
Anyone can invade anyone else. You just need to be ready to accept the consequences.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:01 pmAnd you’ve yet to address my point.
The fact is the one thing we need more than anything else are defectors, and fence-sitters.
And the fact is, you and the bowery boys here are busy bashing every defector that comes our way.
And you’ve spent the rest of the night arguing about it, rather than doing as I suggested, and focusing on the fact that Alan Greenspan, former world renown chariman of the fed has come out and publically declared that the war in Iraq was merely for oil. In fact, other than a handful of saavy bloggers in here, I’m the only one talking about it. You guys are busy trying to bash Greenspan, and bury his message.
Which proves that you’re really just a right wing troll pretending to be one of the progs. And if you’re not, you oughta be.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:04 pmYou just need to be ready to accept the consequences.
Comment by r
I guess thats the same logic that the woman crying: oh, my god…oh, my god at the 2nd plane crashing in WTC, used.
She was really cool about it…I guess.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:05 pmIf you allow me to say so, Tom Lantos is taking a cue from the boss, meaning, no bombing runs until next year! When that happens, we will tell you!
September 16th, 2007 at 10:07 pmEveryone knows the republican strategy for dealing for messages that they don’t want the public to hear, is to shoot the messenger.
And here you two are, pretending to be liberals, shooting the messenger.
Shooting the messenger, and thus trying desperately to bury his message.
It is clear you don’t want anyone promoting the idea that the war in Iraq was for oil.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:07 pmBARTLEBEE, I think the Wall Street Journal Ed has been saying the same things over and over and over…
In fact, almost every troll here is not really discomfort with the idea of getting Iraqis oil. They say it without shame.
I dont think Greenspan said what he said in a regretful way…
September 16th, 2007 at 10:08 pmUnfortunately for you however, Greenspan was widely admired, particulary in wealthier more influential circles, and that means his words will bring much needed public focus on just why we went to Iraq.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:10 pmI dont think Greenspan said what he said in a regretful way…
Comment by Juan C — September 16, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Who cares why he said it?
All that matters now is that he did say it. And thats going to act as a deathblow to the Bush administration. Thats the “dirty little secret” that everybody already knew but the press refused to even acknowledge.
But now, with Alan Greenspan saying it, they’ll be forced to acknowledge it. Its like Carl Bernstein said on Bill Maher the other night, its just “so damned obvious” .”Bush and Cheney were both big oil men, whats not to get”
September 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pmI guess thats the same logic that the woman crying: oh, my god…oh, my god at the 2nd plane crashing in WTC, used.
She was really cool about it…I guess.
Comment by Juan C — September 16, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
A nations decision to invade another country vs. a woman crying.
Juan C, you usually do better.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pmSee I’m not defending Greenspan. You don’t have to defend a defector to accept their help. You just have to set aside your moral judgement of them in order to accept their help.
And what Greenspan said, is going to open the door THIS WEEK to discussing in the MSM, the notion that the war in Iraq was all about oil. And THATS a good thing.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:18 pmIn fact, Greenspans revelation is akin to a whistleblowing. It will likely embolden more insiders to step forward, and if testimony can be gathered that demonstrates the war was always about the Oil, this president could be looking at the business end of a writ of impeachment.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:20 pmSee I’m not defending Greenspan. You don’t have to defend a defector to accept their help. You just have to set aside your moral judgement of them in order to accept their help.
And what Greenspan said, is going to open the door THIS WEEK to discussing in the MSM, the notion that the war in Iraq was all about oil. And THATS a good thing.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Change 2 words.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:26 pmSee I’m not defending Osama Bin Laden. You don’t have to defend a terrorist to accept their help. You just have to set aside your moral judgment of them in order to accept their help.
Liberals and progs constantly badger conservatives to see their point of view, and then when they do, they wail on them for not doing it sooner.
Which leads me to believe that either they really want the dems to lose, or they’re more concerned with being right, then acheiving their declared goals.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:27 pmChange 2 words.
See I’m not defending Osama Bin Laden. You don’t have to defend a terrorist to accept their help. You just have to set aside your moral judgment of them in order to accept their help.
Comment by r — September 16, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
Wake up skippy. We accept the help of terrorists all the time. Look at Kadafi. Accepting the help of an enemy defector is something that you do if your goal is to win. And Greenspan wasn’t exactly the enemy.
But hey, go ahead. Everytime someone like Greenspan steps up, and decides to speak out against Bush and the war, you political guru’s shout him down, and dwell on unrelated perceived personal or professional shortcomings. Just make it a smear campaign, so that no more of those dirty repubicans or fence sitters decide to ever speak up again.
Heck-uva-Job.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pmWhich leads me to believe that either they really want the dems to lose, or they’re more concerned with being right, then acheiving their declared goals.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
You mean “than” achieving their goals, which is why I don’t think you really are BARTLBEE.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:34 pmWhatever you do, don’t let the message that Iraq was for oil dominate the blogs or the media. Make sure the focus is shifted off the war and the presidents and vice presidents quest for control of the oil, and onto the petty shortcomings of Alan Greenspan.
That oughta win a lot of elections.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:35 pmYou mean “than†achieving their goals, which is why I don’t think you really are BARTLBEE.
Comment by r — September 16, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
lol. Another interesting turn. Anything but the Iraq war being about oil huh?
Sorry. Bartlebee makes typos all the time. I hit hard and fast and I don’t stop for cosmetics and I don’t use word processers. So nice try, but Bartlebee is me.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:37 pmThe world shall know that I is me,
For none can compare with the BARTLEBEE.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:41 pmr,
So if some coalition invaded and occupied the US just to take our resources and caused 20% of Americans to be either dead or refugees, made us the second-worst failed state in the world, and made one in eight of our children die before the age of five—that would be all right with you as long as they accepted the consequences? You just surpassed Bush and went alongside Hitler and Attila the Hun.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:42 pmSorry. Bartlebee makes typos all the time. I hit hard and fast and I don’t stop for cosmetics and I don’t use word processers. So nice try, but Bartlebee is me.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
If this is true, then sorry. I thought I was defending BARTLEBEE against a crank. But if it really was you, my bad.
We really don’t get much oil from Iraq, why would you assume it’s all about oil?
September 16th, 2007 at 10:45 pmBartleBee you do seem a bit more, how shall I write, unrestive?, the last few days.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:47 pmBecause Bush was in with the big oil executives and the money flows well beyond oil. It was about money really, but the oil was the basis for the money.
Wait till people figure out that oils being pumped right now to several undisclosed locations on the caspian sea.
Iraq is a strategic location for several reasons from a military point of view, but at the end of the day, if there wasn’t any oil, we would NOT have gone in.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:48 pmComment by Keith — September 16, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
So if some coalition invaded and occupied the US
I think we can stop right there.
Thanks to the US military, from top to bottom.
God Bless America.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:48 pmBartleBee you do seem a bit more, how shall I write, unrestive?, the last few days.
Comment by Ichthus — September 16, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
I’m sorry, but I’m not sure how to respond to being called a made up word.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:49 pmWe really don’t get much oil from Iraq, why would you assume it’s all about oil?
Comment by r
No, we don’t, but EVERY time there is tension in the middle east, the price rises TREMENDOUSLY, so there IS a correlation, right??
And when we attacked Iraq, the FIRST thing we secured was the Ministry of OIL, and left the ammo dumps open, which the locals use to make RPG’s.
EVERYONE except the TRAITOR Bush azz-kissers KNEW it was about OIL before we ever attacked.
Our skepticism of Bush’s WMD LIES has been PROVEN.
It was about OIL.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:50 pmThanks to the US military, from top to bottom.
God Bless America.
Comment by r — September 16, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
What “r” you, nuts? Our military is 6000 miles away.
By the time they got back we’d all be speaking Manderin.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pmWe really don’t get much oil from Iraq, why would you assume it’s all about oil? Comment by r — September 16, 2007
I am not answering for BartleBee, but the PNAC letter, written then by todays Bushies, to Clinton was worried the hazard Saddam was to the second largest known oil reserves
September 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pmSo if some coalition invaded and occupied the US
I think we can stop right there.
Yup, WE would fight the INVADERS the same way that the Iraqis are fighting US, the INVADERS.
Yes, we CAN stop RIGHT THERE.
FCVK George W. Bush and his PNAC WAR CRIMINALS.
From top (Jeff Gannon) to bottom (Rove, Bush and the rest of Jeff’s whores…)
September 16th, 2007 at 10:53 pmand a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
September 16th, 2007 at 10:54 pmhttp://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
We really don’t get much oil from Iraq, why would you assume it’s all about oil?
Comment by r — September 16, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
It is about the CONTROL of the oil. To have it go to the top Western oil corps and not to Russia, China, and India. To prevent there being too much oil in the market now and lowering the price. To prevent it being sold in Euro’s.
Iraq has either the second-largest or the largest oil reserves in the world (depending on which experts you read). You think this is not important to our oil administration? You must really be in denial!
September 16th, 2007 at 10:57 pmBecause Bush was in with the big oil executives and the money flows well beyond oil. It was about money really, but the oil was the basis for the money.
Wait till people figure out that oils being pumped right now to several undisclosed locations on the caspian sea.
Iraq is a strategic location for several reasons from a military point of view, but at the end of the day, if there wasn’t any oil, we would NOT have gone in.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
So it was all about oil, except that it wasn’t really about oil, it was about money which is about oil, and the caspian sea.
And if Iraq didn’t have oil, that explains why we went to war, even though we don’t import hardly any oil from Iraq.
Ok
September 16th, 2007 at 11:01 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007
Perhaps persnickety?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:03 pmThe White House, PNAC, and the Pentagon were concerned with controlling Iraq’s oil in the future and to have fourteen permanent bases next to #1 oil reserves (Saudi Arabia) and #3 (Iran). If it had been about the reasons given, we would have invaded Pakistan.
Give me a big sheet of paper and a crayon and I’ll draw you a picture.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:07 pmComment by r — September 16, 2007
Well Canadian oil is mostly oil shale, which is expensive to produce, oil sand is about the same. The oil in Iraq needs little refining in comparison. Besides Saudi is depleting their wells pretty quickly. Plus, Israel got its oil from Iraq cut off. Lets not forget it was Kuwaits slant drilling under Iraq that set off gulf 1
September 16th, 2007 at 11:08 pmFirst of all, how much oil we import on the internation market is irrelevant. Once we control the oil and the security of the oil, we can control where the oil goes. Secondly, the profit doesn’t have to be direct. Monies from ndirect profits through prearranged contract deals spends just as well.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:09 pmIf you believe that we’d still be in Iraq if there was no oil, then I’ve got some really nice waterfront property in Florida I’d like you to take a look at.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:10 pmOr perhaps I could interest you in a nice bridge?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:11 pmPerhaps persnickety?
Comment by Ichthus — September 16, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
Thats better. Persnickety is a word I can relate to.
Yes. I’m persnickety these days. Just call me Lemony Pernickityits.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:13 pmGive me a big sheet of paper and a crayon and I’ll draw you a picture.
Comment by Keith — September 16, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
That was directed at “r”, of course. If “r” is Mr P, then I am wasting my typing.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:18 pmOT, but a neat pic.
Earth Man and Stars?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:29 pmhttp://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0709/freeflyer_nasa_big.jpg
At the end of the day, doesn’t anyone see the logic in enticing defectors and fence sitters to our cause as opposed to bashing them whenever they dare to come out?
Or is this concept lost on you?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:32 pmOh well. At least OJ’s finally going to jail.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:32 pmIf you believe that we’d still be in Iraq if there was no oil, then I’ve got some really nice waterfront property in Florida I’d like you to take a look at.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
Or perhaps I could interest you in a nice bridge?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
Snicker.
You continue to amaze.
I still think this is name copping – BARTLEBEE doesn’t say stuff like this.
waterfront property in Florida? Don’t you mean Arizona, or someplace without a massive water front?
If this makes no sense, why should we pay any attention to you political posts?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:33 pmTwo or three decades ago, scammers were selling “waterfront property” in Florida which turned out to be swamp land.
Now, r, you say something that makes sense.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:40 pmOh well. At least OJ’s finally going to jail.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
I understand, your saying its like killing the messenger.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:42 pm[in this case one thats well regarded by many]
Oh, I almost misremembered, OJ is going to jail?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:43 pm(CNN) — [[2005]]Documents obtained by CNN reveal the United States knew about, and even condoned, embargo-breaking oil sales by Saddam Hussein’s regime, and did so to shore up alliances with Iraq’s neighbors.
The oil trade with countries such as Turkey and Jordan appears to have been an open secret inside the U.S. government and the United Nations for years.
See, its all very easy to understand. Its OIL! Its black gold!
September 16th, 2007 at 11:46 pmOh well. At least OJ’s finally going to jail.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
I hope they don’t phone him in advance this time, asking if it’s okay to come around about “2:00-ish” and pick him up!!
Then we’d have another White Bronco chase and all that over again!
September 16th, 2007 at 11:48 pmTwo or three decades ago, scammers were selling “waterfront property†in Florida which turned out to be swamp land.
Now, r, you say something that makes sense.
Comment by Keith — September 16, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
Whatever.
Stop using Iraq as an oil boogyman.
If you drive a car or use plastic in any way, you are to blame too. Equally to me.
Oil is important to our economy.
And we get most of our oil from Canada.
Not Iraq.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:54 pmComment by Keith — September 16, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
So if some coalition invaded and occupied the US
I think we can stop right there.
Thanks to the US military, from top to bottom.
God Bless America.
Comment by r
So, r, I’m a little unclear on what you are saying here. Are you saying that no one could invade and occupy the US thanks to our military? Exactly how is our military going to protect us? They are all in Iraq! We don’t even have the National Guard to protect us from invasion or any other disaster any longer since Bush has sent 90% of them to Iraq.
September 16th, 2007 at 11:57 pmUnfortunately for you however, Greenspan was widely admired, particulary in wealthier more influential circles, and that means his words will bring much needed public focus on just why we went to Iraq.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Give me a break. The people in “wealthier and more influential circles” have known from the beginning why we are in Iraq and THEY DON’T CARE! They approve of Bush’s plan. So, how is Greenspan telling them that we are in Iraq for their oil going to help our situation in any way?
September 16th, 2007 at 11:59 pmWe illegally invaded and are now occupying Iraq because of oil in the Middle East. If you think that is fine, then you have no morals, whatsoever. You could certainly never complain if you got mugged, for instance, by someone who needed money for their heroin habit. Your complaining would be hypocritical.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:00 amIf you drive a car or use plastic in any way, you are to blame too. Equally to me.
Oil is important to our economy.
And we get most of our oil from Canada.
Not Iraq.
Comment by r
You are correct, we don’t get “most” of our oil from Iraq. But we do get quite a bit of our oil from them. They are 7th in our imports. And, if we control the oil in Iraq, guess what, we can get most of our oil from Iraq. The problem here is that we have reached peak oil and we are now on the downside. That means that each year that goes by, getting the oil we need will become harder and harder because there will not be enough oil to feed all the nations on earth. Now, smart nations would look at this and say, maybe we should be doing something to decrease our dependence on oil. But not Bush. He decides to invade a country and kill it’s people so he can steal their oil. Plus he has the added benefit of being able to raid our treasury and enrich his friends through war profiteering.
Does that make sense or is your pea brain to small to comprehend the big picture?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:04 amComment by bilbogaggins — September 16, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
I’m afraid I agree. The influential people either know already, or else their psychological defense mechanisms have kicked in so strongly that there is no changing their minds.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:05 amSome people think that since the American consumer is not benefiting, that this is proof we didn’t take Iraq for the oil. But when was the last time this administration ever did anything with consumer benefits in mind?
When a barrel went from $20 under Clinton to $80 now, it made the reserves of the top five oil corps worth $2.2 TRILLION. Exxon makes $10 billion profit every three months.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:09 amYou’re wrong. There are thousands of fence sitters out there. People for whatever reason just havent’ got involved.
But I do admire your determination to reduce the impact of Alan Greenspans criticism of the Iraq war.
Whether you’re a republican or not, you serve them well.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:10 amPeople like Bill Gates and Richard Branson I assure you respect the words of Alan Greenspan. And they are just two obvious examples. There are thousands more. Powerful and influentual people that until now, have remained mostly uninvolved. With people like Madeline Albright and Alan Greenspan coming out against the war, we have a better chance bringing the troops home and ending the war, then we do without them.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:14 amDoes Greenspan read TP? Because I just saw a long interview on 60 Minutes and they didn’t mention it?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:14 amWhat the hell does that have to do with anything?
Who cares if he reads TP? The moods the same in liberal blogs all over the country and thats what the media reports.
I’m all for going after the opposition hard, but when one comes around to our way of thinking, and you guys want to damn him for it, then I’m left to ask how smart are the folks who’s wagon I’m hitching my star too.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:16 amGreenspan just said on 60 Minutes that he’s voting Republican in 2008. So I am not really convinced that he has come around to our way of thinking. Maybe he thinks that it is okay to take their oil.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:20 amEven the Nazi’s were smart enough to embrace defectors from their enemies, as opposed to discouraging them.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:21 amGreenspan just said on 60 Minutes that he’s voting Republican in 2008. So I am not really convinced that he has come around to our way of thinking.
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Ok, one more time.
I am NOT making a character or moral judgement as to Greenspans motives or aspirations. I have been, for the last 6 hours, trying to drill into your thick skull one concept and one concept alone.
That Greenspan has openly stated that the Iraq war was about Oil, something we’ve been saying since day one. On THAT issue, we agree. Who cares what his motivations are. The declaration in and of itself is damnation to the Bush administration. End of story.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:24 amI’m sure a lot of people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 (I think they stole both, BTW) are mad that they were hoodwinked and will vote Democratic next time. Greenspan’s statement increases this feeling. We won last December by almost 12% which is a huge margin. The Republican Revolution of 1994 was only a 3% margin.
But I am still going to say what I think is the truth. If someone calls me a “Chomsky”, then I am flattered.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:25 amAnd if you think Greenspan doesn’t know what a sh1tstorm for the president that his revelation about the war for oil is going to generate, then perhaps I might still interest you in that bridge.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:26 amI don’t have a thick skull, I extremely understand what you are saying.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:27 amDo you think it helps the progressive cause to say i have a thick skull? Don’t we still have freedom of speech?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:28 amI’m not “r”. I’m on your side. We just differ on strategy.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:29 amDo you think it helps the progressive cause to say i have a thick skull? Don’t we still have freedom of speech?
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 12:28 am
Yes we have freedom of speech. And considering its taken me about 7 hours to convey a single simple concept to you, I’d have to say that qualifies as a fairly dense cranial shell.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:31 amGreenspan just said he is voting Republican in 2008. Why don’t you turn your anger on him, instead of me—- who plans to vote for Kucinich in the primary?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:31 amAnd I’m not even sure you comprehend the concept yet, in truth.
The jury’s still out on that one.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:32 amI understood you seven hours ago. It wasn’t that complicated a concept. Just because I didn’t address you, you have a problem? You never addressed me, if you’d like to check.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:32 amWhy don’t you turn your anger on him, instead of me
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 12:31 am
When I’m angry then I will express that. If you mistake a little chiding as anger then perhaps that cranial density is greater than we thought.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:34 amAlways with the circular firing squad.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:34 amAnger, firing squads. You really do have a problem with a little ribbing, huh?
Look, if you get my point, then why not summarize it?
Lets hear a summary of the one thing I’ve been saying all night long.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:36 amThat’s the third time you said I have a thick skull, so
GO CHENEY YOURSELF
September 17th, 2007 at 12:37 amYea.
I thought so.
Thanks for confirming my density readings.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:40 amAnd telling me to go f myself in all caps demonstrates its you who are angry.
But thanks for playing.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:42 amI was dean’s list with 10 sociology, eight history, and five political science courses at a university 35 years ago that was #4 in the nation in sociology (only Berkeley, Chicago, and Columbia ranked higher) and top ten in both history and political science.
But I cannot possibly understand Bartlebee’s concept. It is just too far over my head and my skull is soooooo thick.
GO CHENEY YOURSELF
September 17th, 2007 at 12:46 amYeah. You made me angry. Happy? Does that help the progressive cause to p*ss off fellow progressives?
September 17th, 2007 at 12:47 amBut I cannot possibly understand Bartlebee’s concept. It is just too far over my head and my skull is soooooo thick.
GO CHENEY YOURSELF
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 12:46 am
Apparently so, since you’ve been unable to articulate it thus far, or to demonstrate in what way its flawed.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:54 amYeah. You made me angry. Happy?
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Elated.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:55 amDoes that help the progressive cause to p*ss off fellow progressives?
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Beats pissin on them.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:56 amWhich is what you’re doing each time you shoot down a republican or moderate who voices an opinion that supports us. Of course, you don’t see that. You’re too busy raging against the machine.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:59 amI am not applauding Greenspan, and thats the strawman you’ve been fighting all night. I am applauding his message, and what its going to do to stimulate the Iraq war debate, particularly with regards to why we are there.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:08 amIt’s all about the oil, stupid!
September 17th, 2007 at 3:04 amAfghanistan was about an oil pipeline from Central Asia to the Arabian sea. Iraq was about the oil. Iran will be about the oil as well. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, we will not have to occupy them. Most of their oil is located on borders of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The population is non-Persian Shia who should get along with the Iraq Shia in Southern Iraq, and Saudis oil is also located in their minority Shia region. Convenient.
Iran would of course close the Strait should we do an oil grab, and 40% of the oil goes through there, so we would have to cripple their military before making the grab and force the world to impose sanctions on them similar what we did with Iraq to contain them. We would also most likely have a no fly zone to keep them grounded and try to force a regime change. Hope we have more luck than with Saddam.
Obviously, we would have to promise China and Russia something to get them to go along as thye have good relations with Iran. Hitler made a pact with Stalin to allow him to not intervene over Poland and handed him East Poland. Look how that turned out. The US will probably just let China take Taiwan w/o a military or economic penalty. Russia may be given the ok to reinstate their union without us protesting, or perhaps a piece of Iran.
WMD’s, terror, democracy, nuclear, etc are all just excuses for the people to support the oil grab. Hitler told the German people they were attacked by Poland. Like Goring said when being interviewed at Nuremeberg and asked to explain how they got the people to support the war, just tell them we are being attacked and make them them afraid, and they will support war, democratic, fascist, communist, etc., it’s all the same.
The Germans were told the Communists were the security threat, and the Jews were their economic enemy. Today, they tells us Islamism = Terrorism is the security threat, and anti-Corporatism our economic enemy. Corporatism is just another word for Fascism, so the real enemy is Democracy, which straddles the center between Communism and Fascism.
Hitler was one of Zionism’s biggest supporters, he wanted to ship all the German Jews to Palestine if he could, but the British set limits to immigration to Palestine. Today another Chrisitian nation and it’s leader is also a big supporter of Zionism, but instead of ethnically cleansing Jews from Europe, we support the Ethnic Cleansing of Muslim from Greater Israel.
WWI had a Christian Holocaust committed by Muslims
September 17th, 2007 at 3:40 amWW II had a Jewish Holocaust committed by Christians
WW III might end in a Muslim Holocaust committed by a Christian/Jews alliance, if Iran becomes our “Poland”. Already 1.2 million down in Iraq, so it’s a good start.
Russia Set to Ship Nuclear Fuel to Iran
DUBAI: After months of wrangling, Russia is set to ship nuclear fuel to Iran’s Bushehr facility, Iranian official media said.
Iran state television quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying, “Nuclear fuel for this power plant, inspected and sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, is ready.†He added that cooperation between Russia and Iran for the Bushehr power plant is now “moving.â€
http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/17/stories/2007091755991400.htm
September 17th, 2007 at 7:26 amhttp://news.yahoo.com/i/721;_ylt=Av7RnsMvMqp5OkI649zgJlGs0NUE
Blackwater license being pulled in Iraq
BAGHDAD – The Interior Ministry said Monday that it was pulling the license of an American security firm allegedly involved in the fatal shooting of civilians during an attack on a U.S. State Department motorcade in Baghdad.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:45 am.â€Bush and Cheney were both big oil men, whats not to getâ€
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 16, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
Except that hiding it behind the oil is not going to bring out reasons #2 and #3. Anyone care to name countries benefitting from American blood and/or tax money? There is an old saying: “trabajamos para el Ingles”, meaning: after the Spanish conquered, murdered and took riches from South American indians, the Brits would wait in the middle of the sea and take it away from the Spanish. Who are we working for?
September 17th, 2007 at 7:49 amIraq To Eject Security Firm Over Killings
CBS News – 32 minutes ago
Blackwater license being pulled in Iraq
AP via Yahoo! News – 14 minutes ago
Blackwater License Being Pulled in Iraq
Washington Post – 47 minutes ago
Blackwater security firm banned from Iraq
CNN.com – 35 minutes ago
Blackwater License Being Pulled in Iraq
ABC News – 29 minutes ago
Iraqi Interior Ministry Lifting Blackwater’s License After Fatal Shooting
WLBZ Bangor – 25 minutes ago
Iraq pulling Blackwater’s license
The News & Observer – 59 minutes ago
Iraq pulls Blackwater USA license
September 17th, 2007 at 8:34 amWVEC Norfolk – 47 minutes ago……..
Iraq pulls Blackwater USA license
Comment by Tobey Tall — September 17, 2007 @ 8:34 am
They’re starting to get control of their country. I hope it leads to less American blood being shed.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:58 amAnd telling me to go f myself in all caps demonstrates its you who are angry.
But thanks for playing.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 12:42 am
When did I say that? Why are you so angry?
September 17th, 2007 at 9:20 amBut thanks for playing.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 12:42 am
For playing what? Why are you so angry?
September 17th, 2007 at 9:49 am“I think it is very remarkable that it took Alan Greenspan all these many years and being out of office for stating the obvious.â€
That’s because he now wants to hide the obvious, not reveal it. Care to mention countries which beneffit from our tax dollars and which will continue to do so after we bomb Iran? Ok, you’ve got it!
September 17th, 2007 at 10:25 amSo much for this thread:
Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2007; A03
Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been “essential” to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Greenspan, who was the country’s top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that “the Iraq War is largely about oil.” In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, “I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.” Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, “Well, unfortunately, we can’t talk about oil.” Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, “I talked to everybody about that.”
Greenspan said he had backed Hussein’s ouster, either through war or covert action. “I wasn’t arguing for war per se,” he said. But “to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B” — an alternative to war.
Greenspan’s reference in “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World” to what he calls the “politically inconvenient” fact that the war was “largely about oil” was first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday and has proved controversial.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took issue with Greenspan on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday. “I wasn’t here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war,” Gates said. But, he added, “I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don’t believe it’s true.”
Critics of the administration have often argued that while Bush cited Hussein’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and despotic rule as reasons for the invasion, he was also motivated by a desire to gain access to Iraq’s vast oil reserves. Publicly, little evidence has emerged to support that view, although a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled “Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy” and signed by Bush in August 2002 — seven months before the invasion — listed as one of many objectives “to minimize disruption in international oil markets.”
Though Greenspan’s book is largely silent about Iraq, it is sharply critical of Bush and fellow Republicans on other matters, denouncing in particular what Greenspan calls the president’s lack of fiscal discipline and the “dysfunctional government” he has presided over. In the interview, Greenspan said he had previously told Bush and Cheney of his critique. “They’re not surprised by my conclusions,” he said.
As for Iraq, Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.” While he was “reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon,” he added, “my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon.”
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.”
September 17th, 2007 at 12:33 pmFor playing what? Why are you so angry?
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 17, 2007 @ 9:49 am
As I have told you all night, it takes more than an right wing nutjob like you, to make me angry.
I am just mocking you, which clearly has you reduced to repeating like a troll the words “why so angry”?
Thanks for proving you’re nothing more than a silly little troll.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pmThe trolls have worked hard to ensure that the revelation that Alan Greenspan knows the Iraq war was for oil, does not get discussed.
But alas poor trolls.
I just keep coming back to it.
So TOLIVER\AKA\JOECARIBE\AKA\KEITH.
You lose.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:42 pmThe Iraq war WAS for the oil, and that revelation is going to lead to criminal charges being brought against Bush and Cheney, and a lot of other people.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:43 pmOne small problem!! That quote was a TOTAL lib lie!
Unfortunately for the liberal press and blogosphere, Greenspan did not say what was attributed to him. After the news broke, Greenspan called up the Post to say he’d been quoted out of context:
Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.” While he was “reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon,” he added, “my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon.”
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.”
NICE TRY LIBS!!
September 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pmYou’re a paranoid kook BARTLEBEE .
The Woodward article and subsequent Greenspan interviews put this thread to bed.
TP s-cks again.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pmOf course the war was about oil.
That fact is the elephant in the living room.
Unfortunately, the living room is crowded with elephants.
Vincente Fox says that Bush has the largest ego he has ever encountered. Coming from a man who has built a career on machismo, that speaks volumes.
Since Bush has never acomplished anything mirroring success in his life, his ego and lineage have served him well.
The drumbeat of Republican pols has been . . “the surge is working” . . . “dems support a failed policy that has been in place for the past four years” . . . ad nauseum.
No. Dems have not supported Bush’s failed policies for the past four years and the surge is clearly not working.
Dems must take aim at the elephants in the living room. Talking points:
Bush is an idiot.
The war is about oil.
The war is about occupation.
The war is not winnable by any standard.
Viet Nam did just fine when we got out. (Visit, it’s beautiful).
No American should sacrifice life or limb for an oil company.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:07 pmPresident Eisenhower warned against the emergence of the military industrial complex. Bush is commander in chief of that complex. It should be dismantled. Bush’s cronies at Halliburton, Blackwater, and the privatized “security companies” must come under harsh scrutiny.
The Iraqi government may be failed, but at least today, they passed a law getting rid of Blackwater.
When the country we are allegedly defendiing and that can’t agree on anything agrees that they have seen the enemy and it is us, we need to go.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:14 pmBartlebee,
Since you said that I am a right-wing troll using various aliases, you have proven that YOU are the one incapable of comprehending. Go back to 7:56 PM in this thread (#153) and read everything with my name at the bottom. If you still think that I am a right-wing troll using aliases then you don’t have an elementary school comprehension level.
BTW, your extremely complicated concept was “don’t bash defectors, ’cause we need them”. There, does that make your ego feel better? I am so sorry I did not bow down to your wisdom at the very beginning.
I still don’t see much proof that Greenspan is a defector. He said he is voting Republican in 2008. He said the war is about the oil—but he is fine with that. That is just like many conservatives I have talked to. When I say Iraq is about taking their oil, they say “Great! We need it!”.
September 17th, 2007 at 3:06 pmKeith,
Don’t know your level of reading comprehension, but Greenspan did not say that “he is fine with that.”
That said, you’ve fairly well undermined your credibility with regard to any other argument that you may air.
Greenspan clearly said, “the war was about oil,” Bush is lacking any semblance of pragmatism, and that unlike Bush, Clinton, whatever you may think about him was a “thinker.” (implying, if not sharply stating, that dub’ya is not).
September 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pmBTW, your extremely complicated concept was “don’t bash defectors, ’cause we need themâ€. There, does that make your ego feel better?
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Not really. Not that my ego was bothering me in the first place nimrod.
But it shouldn’t do much for your ego, considering it took you over a day to articulate such a simple, obvious and logical concept.
Of course, guys like you work from passion, not logic. To you its logical to shoot your own side in the foot by making an example out of each and every defector that comes your way, bearing support for your cause.
You’re a real political genius.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:32 pmMaybe we should just announce publically that if you aren’t with us now, then don’t bother coming over later. Then, we can put a cap on all this unneeded support, and continue on with our meager one vote majority in congress, and the more than a 3rd of Americans who still think Saddam caused 911.
What a brilliant strategy.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:35 pmI still don’t see much proof that Greenspan is a defector. He said he is voting Republican in 2008. He said the war is about the oil—but he is fine with that.
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
I never saw where he said he “was fine with that”. You’ll need to provide a link for that.
As for saying the war was ALL about oil, thats the worst, most damning thing he could have said publically about the Bush administration.
September 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pmAlthough clearly your goal for the last two days, has been to minimize the impact of that message.
Wonder why you, such a stalwart and loyal progressive, would want to do that?
September 17th, 2007 at 6:40 pmAs for saying the war was ALL about oil, thats the worst, most damning thing he could have said publically about the Bush administration.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
But he’s NOT saying he is against it! That’s what you don’t seem to understand while trying to defend Greenscam/Lantos. He is not a defector but a criminal Republican stating the obvious. Don’t you understand the difference?
September 17th, 2007 at 10:36 pmWith re to Bartlebee,
By responding to this nimrod, you only empower him.
Stop.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:46 pmGreenspan:
“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.â€
Greenspan is saying the US has the perfect right to invade, occupy, and control Iraq’s (and anywhere in the Middle East) oil because it is such an essential resource. He says Saddam cannot be trusted—that it might lead to chaos.
This is what all neocons say. This is what PNAC, the Pentagon, and the White House say. This is what the enemies of Progressives say. Excuse me, but I still follow Kucinich, Nader, Saunders, Feingold, The Nation Magazine, Robert Fisk, Howard Zinn, Chomsky, Robert Scheer, Palast, Klare, Ray and George MCGovern, etc, etc.
If you think I am a right-wing troll—then YOU are the one with the thick skull. Yes, I got mad after you said that to me three times.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:54 pmGood lord,
The problem with the Democratic Party today is that dems are sheep to the feeding trough.
Any republicancan chant a party talking point and the dems are there.
My God . . .
The dems have an agenda . . .
Get us out of this war
Universal health care
Stop gang violence
Improve education
Lead. . . we’re begging for honest leadership.
We’ve got none.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:56 pmI agree rockyr.
71% of Americans want to withdraw from Iraq.
66% of Americans want universal, single-payer, government-run healthcare. This is well to the left of what Hillary and Edwards have proposed. This is what only Kucinich has proposed.
Americans want much more spent on education and far less on the Pentagon. People don’t know that about $950 billion every year goes for military purposes.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:01 pmMedia won’t mention Kucinich’s policies because the media doesn’t want those policies.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:02 pmKeith,
Great comment. If only we had an administration that shared the values of the people they serve.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:05 pmFYI,
Got pulled over last night for the fourth time this year. No tickets . . . just where is your insurance and registration.
Fine country we’re livin’ in.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:08 pmFYI Update:
I drive a late model european import with no dents, or other deformaties that might flag a “gang” tat warning . . . pretty much I deserve a 1% tax break dub’ya.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:15 pmOh yeah,
dub’ya don’t care about . . . people.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:25 pmBut he’s NOT saying he is against it! That’s what you don’t seem to understand while trying to defend Greenscam/Lantos
Comment by JoeCaribe — September 17, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
Wrong braniac.
Like I’ve been trying to drill into that thick cranium of yours for the last 2 days, I am NOT defending Greenspan and I am not defining his motives.
That is why I repeatedly wrote the words, I”M NOT DEFENDING HIM.
Clearly rockyroads concern for your reading comprehension skills was well warranted.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:58 amI’ll bet it really helps you when you go bowling to have a spare ball permanently attached to your shoulders.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:00 am