Alan Greenspan has come back from the tomb of history to correct the record. He did not make any mistakes in his eighteen-year tenure as Federal Reserve chairman. He did not endorse the regressive Bush tax cuts of 2001 that pumped up the federal deficits and aggravated inequalities. He did not cause the housing bubble that is now in collapse. He did not ignore the stock market bubble that subsequently melted away and cost investors $6 trillion. He did not say the Iraq War is "largely about oil."

Check the record. These are all lies.

Greenspan's testimony endorsing the Bush tax cuts was extremely influential but now he wants to run away from it.  

In the instance of Iraq, Greenspan is actually correcting his own memoir, The Age of Turbulence, which just came out. This weekend, newspapers reported provocative snippets from the book, including this: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what every everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Wow, talk about your "inconvenient truth." Greenspan was blithely acknowledging what official Washington has always denied and the news media faithfully ignored. "Blood for oil." No, no, no, that's not what he meant, Greenspan corrected in a follow-up interview. [Bob Woodward in Monday's Washington Post] He was only saying that "taking out Saddam was essential" for "oil security" and the global economy.

Are you confused? Welcome to the world of slippery truth Greenspan has always lived in. He was the Maestro, as Bob Woodward's loving portrait dubbed him. Wall Street loved the Chairman best because the traders and bankers knew he was always on their side and would come to their rescue. The major news media treated him like an Old Testament prophet. Whatever the chairman said was carved on stone tablets, even when it didn't make any sense, as it often didn't.

Some of us who followed his tracks more closely, were not so kind. Harry Reid, now the Democratic Senate leader, said Greenspan was "one of the biggest political hacks in Washington." Amen. I called him "the one-eyed chairman" who could always spot reasons to stomp on the real economy of work and production, but was utterly blind to the destructive chaos in the financial system. No matter. The adoration of him was nearly universal.

Until now. The economic consequences of his rule are accumulating and even the dullest financial reporters are stumbling on crumbs of truth about Greenspan's legendary reign. It sowed profound and dangerous imbalances in the US economy. That's what happens when government power tips the balance in favor of capital over labor, favoring super-rich over middle class and poor, then holds it there for nearly a generation.

Things get out of whack and now the country is paying big time. A pity reporters and politicians didn't have the nerve to ask these questions when Greenspan was in power.

He retired only a year ago, but is already trying to revise the history. To explain away blunders that are now a financial crisis facing his successor. To rearrange the facts in exculpatory ways. To deny his right-wing ideological bias and his raw partisanship in behalf of the Bush Republicans.

The man is shrewd. He can see the conservative era he celebrated and helped to impose upon the American economy is in utter ruin. He is trying to get some distance from it before the blood splashes all over his reputation.   Of course, he also came back to cash in--an $8 million advance for a book that is sure to be a huge bestseller. I don't want to be unkind, but Greenspan could have avoided all the embarrassing questions if his book was posthumous.

I haven't the read it yet. I have a hunch I am not going to like it.

Comments (50)

1. Greider: while I am generally prepared to accept criticism of Greenspan - he is assuredly going to be due his share - it would help me out an awful lot of if there was a greater explanation from his loudest critics as to what impact the Federal Reserve Bank really does have in the domains in which Greenspan is getting criticism. I've watched Greenspan be blamed for the dot-com bubble, the credit bubble, the tax cuts for the rich, grotesque wealth inequality, the ravaging of America's physical economy via the loss of our manufacturing and export capabilities, and certainly other major trends.

   What can the Fed and its chief really do that could account for major responsibility for even just the bubbles? And don't the rest of the government officials and appointees hold major responsibility for bubbles and wars and economic management and the rest? It's seems to me that the hands-off or even radical corporatist "management" of the broad American economy for a very long time has been a completely bipartisan affair. The politicians control the choice of the Fed chief, not the other way around.

   The Clintons assuredly have been far worse for us economically than Alan Greenspan. Ditto for Bushes, though Bush Sr. showed a degree of realism that neither Clintons nor Bush Jr. have demonstrated. And our Congress, both chambers, has acted as a rubber stamp for the financial and banking industries and basically any lobby with lots of money.

   Today the NYT opines that, while the Fed chief Bernanke can have an impact on mitigating the coming economic storm, the politicians are the party with real control. This is the same NYT that is part of the media that Greenspan's critics accuse of inflating and worshipping his every statement.

   Can you tell me how it is, in greater detail, that Greenspan himself, as Fed chief, could have done, to have the broad responsibilities for problems he is now accused of?

   Posted by Zero at 09/17/2007 @ 11:22am

2. A case in point: the Fed chief has been blamed for both bubbles. Yet all the Fed can do is control a handful of lending rates on cash flows between certain major banks. The political parties - both the Clinton Democrats and the Bush Republicans - have rubber-stamped every single regressive law pertaining to banks and the financial system that profit-minded lobbying groups representing the financial sector have written. The bipartisan effort at appointing officials to regulatory agencies and supporting the enforcement of regulations by those agencies has been uniformly bad, as well.

   Why would we blame Greenspan? Certainly, he's been a cheerleader for tax cuts and what-not, but the two parties together, through control of the Federal government, have legislated completely in the interests of the short-term profits of the lobbying agencies that own them. Why would we focus on Alan Greenspan in this case?

   Posted by Zero at 09/17/2007 @ 11:28am

3. Repost from KVH's thread on Greenspan.....didn't catch this new thread...

   A nice summation of Greenspan's entire tenure at the Federal Reserve....he was rather humble, UNself-serving, in pointing out the HUGE role played by the good guys winning the Cold War!

   We who are financially responsible Boomers & remember very well the malaise of the `70s and early `80s (as the Reagan revolution began), will credit Greenspan for having done more good than any other Fed Chairman (sorry, FRE!)......an extraordinary two decades of economic growth that is very likely coming to a close....still, HELL of a GOOD RUN!

   Those that are Gen X & Y.....sorry, I don't see a Reagan-type on the horizon in the US....they exist, but abroad!

   NEWSWEEK: Interview: Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

   Sunday September 16, 11:27 am ET

   NEW YORK, Sept. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan responds to critics who charge.....

   Greenspan considers himself the luckiest economist in the world. "I was very fortunate," he tells Newsweek of his tenure, which lasted from August 1987 to January 2006. "I emerged on the scene at the beginning of this extraordinary half-generation. And my tenure ended as events began to change. At the Federal Reserve, we created policies that took full advantage of the way the global economy was working, which enabled us to gain what has really been a remarkable rise in American standards of living."

   On his legacy: "I'd like very much for people to say, 'Well, he caused all of that.' But I don't think the evidence holds up very well for that hypothesis. What I did was create essentially a risk-management-based procedure to implement monetary policy."

   Greenspan also says that if someone told him in 1987, when he became Fed chairman, that it would be possible to have virtually uninterrupted economic growth for nearly twenty years, it would have been a case of "psychiatric inadequacy." He continued: "I do realize how extraordinary, how unusual, this period has been. The very nature of its discontinuity from history is what forced me to reach beyond the usual economic variables to seek an explanation of what it's all about. And as you know, I concluded that it was the result of a seminal geopolitical event, the end of the cold war."

   He continues, "On one side of the Iron Curtain were essentially centrally planned collectivist societies based on the principal that collective activity is what produces wealth and therefore there are no individual rights to property. On the other side were capitalist societies built around the market system, with free trade and individual-property rights. The classic case was East Germany versus West Germany, which were two economies coming from the same history, culture and language... The conventional wisdom was that East Germany's economy was three fourths the size of West Germany's, and that the Soviet Union, while having major shortfalls, was a formidable economic power. Then the Berlin Wall came down, and the economic ruin behind the Iron Curtain was utterly unexpected and unimaginable."

   Newsweek asked Greenspan about the concern many Americans have over China's rise. "I am not, as many people are, concerned about China becoming a threat militarily. In my book, I'm essentially forecasting that what happened to the communist parties of Europe is likely what will happen to the Chinese communist party... They are going to be a formidable economic power, which I think is all to the good," says Greenspan.

   Posted by Happy at 09/17/2007 @ 12:00pm

4. GREIDER: I don't want to be unkind, but Greenspan could have avoided all the embarrassing questions if his book was posthumous.

   Nice Double Speak!

   Note to GREIDER: Like or detest Greenspan, excepting the numerous POTUS he served under for ~6 decades, he IS the single most recognizable and influential American for longer than you've been alive! I doubt very seriously, YOU or any other media dwarfes, will be able to embarasse him!

   Posted by Happy at 09/17/2007 @ 12:17pm

5. i agree with zero's assessment that greenspan's power to set policy was limited.

   however, for many, many years greenspan was THE GURU.

   when he semi-opened his mouth and began mumbling (usually stuff the pols didn't understand), the people who DO set policy took his "word" as gold.

   so the power of his INFLUENCE far out-weighed any interest rate change.

   and pretty soon the house of cards just may collapse.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 12:23pm

6. mr greider is a brilliant man and i am proud to say that i have slogged through one or two of his books, who's ideas felt beyond me but who's concepts still resonate in my mind.

   his "one world economy" was mind numbing but very educational on so many levels. i recall he mentioned, in discussing the rush of the corporations to the cheapest labor markets - as we have seen over the last couple of decades, that no one could ever hope to compete with china for cheap labor. a couple of dollars a month could get you a hard working and dedicated 6 day a week worker.

   he also made the point hat the chinese have enough bodies to do all of the jobs in the entire world.

   his point being that if money was all that mattered we might as well just move all of the jobs to china.

   now as we are awash in lead tainted chinese toys we see that that is exactly what has happened, though we are none the better for it.

   they must have taken mr greider's writings under advisement.

   mr greenspan, chairman al, the delphic oracle has his own brand of mind numbing spin, of which he apparently quite proud, but as mr greider points out, these policies have led to disaster.

   the chairman's wayward, now retracted, comment about the iraqi oil will sell a lot of books on both the left and the right and was, if nothing else, a stroke of marketing brilliance.

   too bad for those of us who are left holding the bag, as it were.

   as they say, the proof is in the pudding, and the chairman has concocted a lumpy, tasteless batter that is sure to inflict much discomfort as we work our way through its digestion.

   i agree with mr greider that this book would have been best done posthumously.

   i mean, hasn't the chairman done quite enough as it is?

   Posted by milesofmusic at 09/17/2007 @ 12:34pm

7. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/17/2007 @ 12:41pm

   It's RESE, of course. Mostly re-re-posting what she posted on the Mukasey thread. Again, glad when April gets here and RESE either shuts up or is proven a bald-faced liar.

   On-topic....Mr Greider is of course entitled to his view of Greenspan. But from 1995 until 2001, during Greenspan's rule, we saw the ending of the 80s deficits and the Clinton boom...and THAT will be his legacy.

   Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 12:53pm

8. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/17/2007 @ 1:05pm

   Yeah, pretty much. By Saint Paddy's day most of us "openents" will be mining bauxite outside of Bozeman. The pretty girls (LILLIAN, DARLA, etc.) will of course be sex slaves for Cheney and the Jesuit/Zionist Cabal....maybe a few pretty boys too!

   to wit-----

   BLOG | Posted 01/25/2007 @ 12:52am Comments for "Edging Impeachment Back Onto the Table" by John Nichols

   When, say, March-ish, maybe April 2008 rolls around and it becomes legislatively, much less politically, IMPOSSIBLE to impeach Bush and Cheney and they are inevitably going to finish out their 2nd terms and leave on Inauguration Day January 2009.....

   what are you going to say about them and why will it matter? ----Posted by MASK 01/26/2007 @ 08:44am

   "By then then will have Nuked and invaded Iran. The Draft will be in operation, probably Martial law too and no body will be able to say anthing against them, because all openents will be classified enemy combatants and shipped to work in the New Reich concentration camps" ----Posted by RESE 01/26/2007 @ 1:18pm

   I'll shut up if it doesn't happen!----Posted by RESE 05/22/2007 @ 09:58am

   Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 1:34pm

9. his point being that if money was all that mattered we might as well just move all of the jobs to china.

   now as we are awash in lead tainted chinese toys we see that that is exactly what has happened, though we are none the better for it.

   by MILESOFMUSIC

   hey everybody, why don't we all MOVE to china and follow the jobs.

   if america gets some leaden toys, just imagine what's going to mexico or albania.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 1:41pm

10. we saw the ending of the 80s deficits and the Clinton boom...and THAT will be his legacy.

    Posted by MASK 09/17/2007 @ 12:53pm

    POP!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 1:43pm

11. Rese don't do brevity.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/17/2007 @ 1:47pm

12. Greenspans biggest crime was the endorsing of the Bush Tax cuts. He continued to support them, long after it was clear that deficits were here and would grow larger. He should have stepped in and doubled the margin requirement in 98-99 before the dot com bubble burst. He also should have stepped in and outlawed the low fico 100% loans in 04 and 05. The fed has tremendous power and he failed to use it when necessary.

    Posted by mrsanfran at 09/17/2007 @ 2:24pm

13. Posted by FREIHEIT 09/17/2007 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person

    I prefer "nam yo ho renge kyo"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/17/2007 @ 2:26pm

14. Great article as usual Bill. I am sure you are semi-retired, but am glad when you summon up the strength to pop us with a great zinger like this one. You corrected a lot of revisionist history which has been hitting the airwaves the last couple of days.

    Posted by mrsanfran at 09/17/2007 @ 2:26pm

15. I prefer "nam yo ho renge kyo"

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/17/2007 @ 2:26pm

    i prefer "do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, si, do"

    the tempered scale is almost in tune with the universe

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 2:30pm

16. I had a minor in economics in college. There are three ways to fight a recession. 1. Increase government spending. 2. Lower taxes. 3. Lower interest rates. The first two are called fiscal policy interventions. The last is called monetary policy. Monetary policy has only one ninth the effect of fiscal policy. The Bush administration used both fiscal interventions in 2001 and with the massive government spending on the Iraq war. The reckless spending of the Republican Congress use up our fiscal armamentarium to fight the next recession as indicated by Greenspan in his new book. Recessions usually start with interest rates at least at seven percent. This gives us room to lower to fight the recession. Now we're at only 5 1/4 and don't have many arrows in the monetary quiver to fight the coming recession. Also we can't lower taxes or increase spending much given our debtor nation status. We need a recssion to work off the misplaced capital investment from two bubbles, the last stock market bubble and the current real estated bubble. There is no way to avoid this. This is how capitalism works. The business cycle cannot be repealed any more than we can repeal the laws of physics. There is nothing the Fed can do to stop this recession. There is little we can do to fight it. This next recession will be the worst, longest and deepest, since World War II. The only way out would be runaway inflation. The Fed will not allow this to happen. This analysis is just simple basic economics. In Greenspan's defense, he wanted triggers to reverse the 2001 tax cuts if the surplus turned to deficits. He stated the Republicans sacrificed this in order to spend their way to a permanent Republican majority. This next election will look more like 1932 than 1974 or 1976 after Watrergate. It will take at least four to eight years for the next (Democratic) administration to undo the massive economic and foreign policy damage to America and the world by this radical Right Wing administration.

    Posted by richschneid at 09/17/2007 @ 2:40pm

17. freiheit: there certainly is real truth to what you describe, a cartel. what you expect from a banking cartel but a focus on short-term moneymaking at banks?

    Posted by Zero at 09/17/2007 @ 2:41pm

18. however, freiheit, remember that this cartel was created specifically to prevent bank and currency panics. some could argue that the fed has failed wrt to the credit bubble to do what it was historically chartered to do - i personally blame the politicans more than the fed, but i suppose that is only because i am stupid enough to continue to pretend that the national government of the US is capable of competent, effective action in the broad pursuit of the best for the many - how infantile of me.

    Posted by Zero at 09/17/2007 @ 2:43pm

19. The Federal Reserve is a banking cartel folks. A banking cartel. A banking cartel.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 09/17/2007 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person

    I suggest you lift tonearm and return it to off position.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/17/2007 @ 2:45pm

20. I'm afraid Mr. Greider does not know what he is talking about (for the most part)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/17/2007 @ 2:46pm

21. Excerpts from an interview by the WSJ w/Alan Greenspan (today's WSJ, page A3):

    ....Mr. Greenspan expressed just as much dismay with the Democratic Party.

    Mr. Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican,....."The Clinton administration was a pretty centrist party," he said. "But they're not governing again. The next administration may have the Clinton administration name but the Democratic Party....has moved....very significantly in the wrong direction.".......especially its skepticism of free trade.

    on Dems gaining control w/2006 election: "When it came time to rule, all of a sudden their ratings collapsed, and the reason they collapsed is they're just as negative as the Republicans."

    ---------------------------------------------------

    It's understandable many, including myself, are nostalgic for the late 1990s'. While just about all Dems think it was primarily due to Bill Clinton, most on the Right know better.....as Greenspan very UNself-servingly, gave credit to the ending of the Cold War (credits The Gipper)....and of course, GOP's control of Congress from 1994 on. The prosperity of the period and early recognition of the unsustainable NASDAQ bubble, led directly to my HAPPY situation today!

    Many on this board believe HRC will automatically lead to a repeat of the Bill Clinton 1990s'.....seems more like reaching for an Impossible Dream akin to lightening striking the same place twice....ask yourself, does Hillary sound remotely like someone committed to longterm economic growth and furthermore, will be checked by the opposition party in Congress?

    Posted by Happy at 09/17/2007 @ 3:22pm

22. Great contribution to the thread, Chip. Thanks for the insight.

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/17/2007 @ 3:47pm

23. Posted by HAPPY 09/17/2007 @ 3:22pm

    HAPPY, there's two questions you have to ask yourself-

    1. Does she want to be re-elected in 2012?

    2. Did she learn her lesson in 1993-1994 from Bill's experiences and what got him re-elected in 1996?

    or even 3. Is she stupid and ideological, or smart and wanting to establish a 2 term legacy?

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 4:14pm

24. MASK! help me! tell me what to do! ----Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/17/2007 @ 1:49pm

    J. Ahern made a fortune off of his "The Survivalist" series back in the 80s.

    I'd start a new one where they (the Jesuit/Zionist Cabal) set off a few nukes in some major cities ("Jericho"-style) and then you and your band of free-thinking Americans (led by Wayne Madsen and Lyndon LaRouche) fight the repressive Vatican-run, Israeli-funded New Reich State!

    RESE and her types will eat it up! Like the right-wing militia guys did the "Survivalist" crap!

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 4:25pm

25. I'm afraid I don't not know what I am talking about (for the most part)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 09/17/2007 @ 2:46pm | ignore this person

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/17/2007 @ 4:26pm

26. Here are a couple of reasons: http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/19970322.htm Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, issued this speech at the 1997 Annual Convention of the Independent Bankers Association of America. Just as we have learned that the optimal level of crime and pollution is not zero, Greenspan argues, "...regulators and legislators should not act as if the optimal degree of bank failure were zero." Greenspan is famous for his elliptical style, so do not be deterred if you encounter trouble attempting to parse his meaning. One of his concerns is the "moral hazard" that occurs when you keep the gains and someone insures your losses. To meet this challenge he recommends removing the safety net from banks that get involved in some of the newer financial activities.

    Alan Greenspan, Testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (June 17, 1998) http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/TESTIMONY/19980617.htm Alan Greenspan indicates the Federal Reserve Board's support for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in this testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. He argues that this repeal is needed for U.S. banks to compete effectively in a global economy. Greenspan also notes that the moral hazard problem that results from deposit insurance requires the government to maintain a supervisory role in the banking industry.

    Posted by eyeswideshut at 09/17/2007 @ 4:33pm

27. Posted by RICHSCHNEID 09/17/2007 @ 2:40pm

    thanks for the post

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 4:38pm

28. however, freiheit, remember that this cartel was created specifically to prevent bank and currency panics. some could argue that the fed has failed wrt to the credit bubble to do what it was historically chartered to do - i personally blame the politicans more than the fed, but i suppose that is only because i am stupid enough to continue to pretend that the national government of the US is capable of competent, effective action in the broad pursuit of the best for the many - how infantile of me.

    Posted by ZERO 09/17/2007 @ 2:43pm | ignore this person

    Zero,

    I would agree with Freiheit that the Fed is a banking cartel, though, I suspect he and I criticize for different reasons. The fed has moved far beyond the chartered policies you've mentioned. The fed has fully entrenched itself as guardian of the financial lords, and in America Finance is the king. The fed is beholden to the narrow interests of investors and capital lenders. Greenspan brought on the recession because he was going after the inflation and wages increases of the late 90s. Fre argues that government is the most powerful force in America, I agree to the point that industry is essentially government, and through the fed, it works narrowly on behalf of the those reckless short-sighted investors you cite. It's no longer just about maintaining the stabilty of banks and currency, but controlling wages and the influence of labor, under the guise of inflation fear mongering.

    Dale Volcker during the 80s was all about the crushing of inflation and specifically pursued the breaking of American labor. Where I see the fed as having ascended above the authority of domestic politics is evidenced by Volcker and his policies which led directly to the great recession of 1982; the Republicans in congress and the White House were furious with the fed for not easing up rates in time for the 82 elections in which they were clobbered, due to the deepest recession since the Great Depression (highest levels of unemployment, devastatingly high interest rates, bankruptcies,etc.). The Republican Senate majority leader fought Volcker weekly and the White House went after him as well. Volcker frustrated the politicians and congress, though it has the power to take over money policy from the fed will never due so, because of the tremendous power and influence of the finance and banking in the political theater.

    The fed is protected by the banking industry and is thus pretty well insulated from the political process at this point in time. The strenght of the european and Asian economies is found in their ability to produce desired manufacturing goods for export, while the American and British strength has shifted to finance and banking--following their relative losses in manufacturing ( of course, the British fell out long ago and pretty much rely on banking).

    Posted by Oustbush at 09/17/2007 @ 5:13pm

29. People should borrow a lot on their homes

    Sage advise from Greenspan that helped create false housing prices based mostly on monthly payments, not the actual value of homes. Greenspan of course was not alone in this, but it got a lot of press and encouraged more borrowing/lending.

    Look what that got us.

    I am so sick of supposed "expert economists" going on the airwaves and claiming that "nobody could have foreseen the collapse of the sub-prime loan industry and the pop of the housing price bubble". What a crock of shit. Anybody with a brain could see it coming.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2007 @ 5:39pm

30. Note to GREIDER: Like or detest Greenspan, excepting the numerous POTUS he served under for ~6 decades, he IS the single most recognizable and influential American for longer than you've been alive! I doubt very seriously, YOU or any other media dwarfes, will be able to embarasse him!

    Posted by HAPPY

    So what if the guy is old? What kind of argument is that?

    Media dwarfes? Without a free, independent media there is no freedom for us. Stop attacking the messenger.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/17/2007 @ 5:52pm

31. "The man is shrewd. He can see the conservative era he celebrated and helped to impose upon the American economy is in utter ruin."

    Yup, you have to be really shrewd to spot that!

    Posted by kingfelix at 09/17/2007 @ 6:13pm

32. 1. Does she want to be re-elected in 2012?

    2. Did she learn her lesson in 1993-1994 from Bill's experiences and what got him re-elected in 1996?

    or even 3. Is she stupid and ideological, or smart and wanting to establish a 2 term legacy?

    Posted by MASK 09/17/2007 @ 4:14pm

    HRC is one smart cookie but I just don't see her as able to bring the country together on anything of substance. She can't be a Reagan Lite.....she just DO NOT inspire....take away women voting purely `HERness'....she has little chance to win!

    On Iraq, how inspiring can a POTUS be by withdrawing--though many wants it--come 2009? Would the country be inspired to see Iraq blows up even with 1/2 or more of our troops still in Iraq while packing? Would the Dems who voted her in expecting a rapid Iraq retreat be inspired if Hillary decide that our presence in Iraq must be sustained?

    Her smarts won't offset her negatives! Ironically, one thing that could remold her image is if Iraq turns dramatically better in her 1st or 2nd year! Anyway, I have no faith in a Dem Congress to deal with adversities.

    So far, she has shown nothing that leads me to believe the economy will fine if she wins!!! I can change my mind if she comes out (soon) and adopt a platform to extend all of Bush 43's tax cuts with just a TINY bit of `soak the richest' pullback.

    Posted by Happy at 09/17/2007 @ 10:20pm

33. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/17/2007 @ 5:19pm

    How about Jewish lizard-men bankers who are also Jesuits and members of the Rockefeller family and whose cousins are Greys from Zeta-II-Reticuli and were disguised as Nazis frozen in a Swiss glacier and recently revived to pose as Mossad agents who planted "micro-nukes" in the Twin Towers and created the holograms that looked like airliners?

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 10:31pm

34. Posted by HAPPY 09/17/2007 @ 10:20pm

    So your prescription for Hillary success is to...

    do the same things that are getting Bush a 29-32% approval rating?....endless deficits caused by endless deployment in Iraq "until victory" (whatever THAT means).

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 10:32pm

35. Posted by MASK 09/17/2007 @ 10:31pm

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/17/2007 @ 11:10pm

    keep it simple, guys:

    bush/cheney

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 11:18pm

36. Who says money don't lie? Thst's trivial that Alan Greenspan lies many lies in his book and other things, just to promote himself, shamelessly. But you could see he's telling truths about Dubya and his men who abused power and grabbed taxpayer's money, also shamelessly.

    Posted by Helen DAO at 09/17/2007 @ 11:48pm

37. HUGE role played by the good guys winning the Cold War!-happycoward

    I wonder how the Solidarity movement fits in with Happys myopic view of the world?

    then there is this:

    "By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 2 minutes ago WASHINGTON - China and Russia are spying on the United States nearly as much as they did during the Cold War, according to the top U.S. intelligence official.

    "China and Russia's foreign intelligence services are among the most aggressive in collecting against sensitive and protected U.S. systems, facilities and development projects, and their efforts are approaching Cold War levels," McConnell says in his testimony. "Foreign intelligence information concerning the plans, activities and intentions of foreign powers and their agents is critical to protect the nation and preserve our security."

    Of course he is advocating FOR spying powers akin to those weilded by China and Russia, no oversight by judicial review. Judges cannot be trusted in the neo-con world.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2007 @ 07:35am

38. I wonder how the Solidarity movement fits in with Happys myopic view of the world?

    Posted by CRABWALK 09/18/2007 @ 07:35am

    oooh, now we're talking

    also, i bet the u.s. is spying on them even more than before!

    after all, they are spying on YOU (attention DHS: i am but a humble man who visits to buy tamales and nopales)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 09:27am

39. Posted by CRABWALK 09/18/2007 @ 07:35am

    Wow, you haven't learned a thing.....A parole that lasts 2 days and I haven't even got a chance to have a conversation w/you, Goodbye, AGAIN!

    Posted by Happy at 09/18/2007 @ 10:55am

40. I found this article to be so partisan, and negative, as to be worthless. Your quaintly dualistic causticness is no asset to clarity... and certainly no boon for democracy. Did they pay you to write this stuff, William?

    Surely a man of Greenspan's well established brilliance is deserving of a 'show' of respect... even from someone so obviously aware of his own eminent superiority... ttr

    Posted by ttr at 09/18/2007 @ 1:06pm

41. Dear TTR: Not everyone believes in Greenspan's "well established brilliance". Some people call him a "political hack". A person can be brilliant and a political ideologue at the same time. Greenspan deferred to the Republicans because he was one of them. They screwed up big time. He does not want to take the fall for them. I respect him now for speaking the truth. But I disrespect him for not doing it when he could have made a difference in the outcome. Those whom history judges the best are the ones who stood up for the truth even when it could have had adverse personal consequences. That is the meaning of courage: to put yourself on the line to help others. We will now all pay the price for Greenspan's lack of courage.

    Posted by richschneid at 09/18/2007 @ 1:34pm

42. Hey, RICHSCHNEID, thanks for the reply...

    Well now... not everyone believes that I've never been gay, or that Kerry is 100 times the patriot of Bush, or that Israel owes it's very existance to the UN... ad infinitum...

    And you would have Greenspan become a political hack to "make a difference in the outcome"... The Clinton administration worked seamlessly with Greenspan to the consternation of no one, whereas the Bush administration 'used' him. You are trying to compare an apple (Greenspan's Republican/Libertarianism) with a lemon (Bush's oughtright misapprehension of Greenspan's meanings)...

    " A person can be brilliant and a political ideologue at the same time" followed by "Greenspan deferred to the Republicans because he was one of them. They screwed up big time." ... a perfect example of the delusional hipocracy the left is capable of...

    History judges no one... People do. And because very few of us are fully informed on any given issue... not to mention the 'big picture'... we do this 'judging' at our peril.

    IMHO, "Greenspan's lack of courage" is approximately equal to Kerry's lack of patriotism. ttr

    Posted by ttr at 09/18/2007 @ 2:46pm

43. Greider: Answer one modest series of questions for the benefit of all, and please be honest. Are you wealthier now than at any time of your life? Do you lack for any of the necessities of decent living? Are your family members safe, secure, and insured? Do you have a healthy 401K? Does inflation ravage the value of your savings? Do you go to a store to find prices marked-up three times in one day? Do you remember 1979? Would you rather pay 18% or 6% for your mortgage? Would you feel safer if the U.S. military aircraft were unable to fly because they were allowed to fall into near total disrepair as in 1978-1980. If as I suspect, an honest reply would establish that you and everyone you care about are almost infinitely wealthier today than in the halcyon Carter years, then please...Shut the F up about Greenspan! This goes to all of the rest of the lefty e-loons currently howling on this channel.

    Posted by rick 57 at 09/18/2007 @ 2:56pm

44. Posted by RICHSCHNEID 09/18/2007 @ 1:34pm

    Actualy RICH, it was Paul Krugman who called Greenspan a "political hack".

    But given Krugman's track record...some doubt his self-anointed or friend-proclaimed "brilliance" too!

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 3:21pm

45. MASK... maybe PK used this [parida.com] source... ;^)

    Posted by ttr at 09/18/2007 @ 5:44pm

46. Dear TTR: History is written by people. You are judging Greenspan, but in a positive light. History is judgement, not just an iteration of facts. I am a WWII history buff. The books are replete with judgements. You're contention is simply one about the meaning of a word. It has nothing to do with economics. BTW, Mask, I don't care what Paul Krugman thought of Greenspan. I knew what he and the Republicans were doing would lead to the worst recession since WWII as they were doing it. My prediction, made at least four years ago, was based on simple macroeconomic principles, not clairvoyance or political ideology. I am politically an independent and a moderate. I explained the economic principles I am referring to in my first post on this thread.

    Posted by richschneid at 09/19/2007 @ 09:09am

47. Thank you for the great column, and exposing Greenspan for the fraud that he is, and has been. I've been thinking the same thing, that Greenspan's working feverishly to distance himself from what is undoubtedly destined to be a huge and painful failure. He was at the helm, steering our Titanic economy on toward visible icebergs, but figured that he was far enough from them to be safe for the time being. Well, he's out, and the Titanic's rudder is damaged, and it's running out of fuel. Helicopter Ben made a nice drop of sugary provisions but they'll be burned up before he gets back to the helipad. The scary thing is to think about what's behind Greenspan's sudden distance-dance. I mean, things here at home are still chugging along, with most people still living a lifestyle better than most of the world's population. Of course it's mostly built on a foundation of debt, and we have little to sell to the world in the event of economic catastrophe. We're screwed and Greenie knows it. It's just a matter of time before the house of cards collapses. The cleansing will be very painful and not so swift. It's sad. Where have the leaders been? At 81, Greenie might want to be thinking about designing a teflon grave marker so that the spit is easier to wipe off. History will look upon him with just a bit more fondness than it will "W". But, that's nothing to brag about, is it?

    Posted by Brian W. at 09/19/2007 @ 3:15pm

48. The critique of Greenspan, right or no, was a disgusting bit of tripe because of the "I did not read the book." statement. A commentator bragging about being uninformed is not what I expect to see in this web site. To compound the stupidity with wishes for Greenspan's death is juvenile sensationalism or, perhaps the author really wishes death to Greenspan. Which is worse?

    Posted by ceddy001 at 09/19/2007 @ 5:08pm

49. Overwhelmed by the copy and paste crowd that has taken over the comments section. My new rule: no copying, no pasting, say it in your own words --limited to 300.

    Posted by hkaplan at 09/19/2007 @ 5:54pm

50. IMHO Greenspan was one of the few that spoke the truth. At least you could logically argue with him and exchange information. He was not malicious like the neocons have been since Nixon.

    Posted by Isador at 09/20/2007 @ 2:33pm