if President wants the bashing to stop, he should stop passing out the medals
Posted on 09/16/2007 7:05:52 AM PDT by navysealdad
WASHINGTON: Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir is harshly critical of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party's principles on spending and deficits.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
Greenspan has jumped into the long line of those who Bash Bush? I always thought he was a walking conflict of interest because he’s married to Andrea Mitchell, the CNN correspondent!
My this is such an important story it needs to be posted 10 times.
if President wants the bashing to stop, he should stop passing out the medals
New and improved formula ... In a BDS moment,
Write book, bash Bush, make rounds on similar BDS infected TV show hosts who marvel at your intelligence, sell book to the left wing loons and daily kooks.
Proven surefire success.
Come to think of it, nothing new here, a path taken by countless BDS suffers over the years. Hate has no bounds.
I do not watch the news, but last night I walked by and watched for about 45 seconds while my wife surfed right around 6:00 news time, and that was the major topic on the channels that were doing news at that time.
They could hardly stop drooling. “Mr. Greenspan has always wanted to speak out...” and “Mr. Greenspan respected Bill Clinton more than any other...” and so on.
Too bad he did not choke him to death.
I think that Greenspan should concentrate on getting it up for skinbag Andrea Mitchell (times ten).
I didn’t know that. It certainly explains a great deal.
Bashing Bush has nothing to do with it. I enthusiastically supported Bush twice. But, his use of the adjective “compassionate” to his “conservative” always bothered me. When one’s compassion is shown by spending taxpayer money, it is neither compassionate, nor conservative. IMO, this is the real reason the GOP lost Congress.
“Of the presidents he worked with, Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.”
What a suprise, the IHT (NY Times International paper) touting Clinton. I’d have to read the book to believe that.
One could argue that it is Gerald Ford he most liked:
From serving under so many presidents, Mr. Greenspan concludes that there’s something abnormal about anyone willing to do what it takes to get the job. Mr. Ford, he writes, “was as close to normal as you get in a president, but he was never elected.” The Watergate tapes, he says, show Richard Nixon as “an extremely smart man who is sadly paranoid, misanthropic and cynical.” He recalls telling someone who had accused Nixon of anti-Semitism that he “wasn’t exclusively anti-Semitic. He was anti-Semitic, anti-Italian, anti-Greek, anti-Slovak. I don’t know anybody he was pro.”
Ronald Reagan’s ability to instantly tap one-liners and anecdotes in support of a particular policy represented an “odd form of intelligence.” He describes Bill Clinton as “a fellow information hound” with “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth” whose relationship with Monica Lewinsky “made me feel disappointed and sad.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html
Here we go again. Don’t say anything negative about the GOP no matter how true it may be. Be like the losers on the left who see everything the D’craps do as great.What Greenspan said is correct !!!
Greenspan has a point about Republicans not acting Republican. Bush himself has not met a single spending bill he wouldn’t sign.
Andrea probably wrote the book. Isn’t she the one who reported about a massacre of Palestinians that never took place? This book sounds like an economic disaster that never took place.
The MSM interprets this like a leftist bashing Bush, but it can also be seen as a Conservative justifiably chastising Bush.
1) Bush adopted a 19th Century Presidential philosophy of letting Congress run the country, and focused on foreign policy. The Republican Congress was not responsible leadership, overspent and wasted huge amounts of money of wasteful and often childish pork projects. Bush neither corrected them with vetoes, nor did he insist on party discipline. Conservatives as a whole punished the Republicans for this and their other failings, and are still dubious as to whether they learned their lesson.
2) To a great extent the Iraq war was about oil, in that there was a good probability that much of the world’s oil supply was threatened, which would have caused worldwide depression if it was suddenly cut off. Please note that Greenspan didn’t criticize the war, he just said it was about oil. From his perspective, oil is the most important feature of the war. But it was far from Bush’s sole strategic concern, or what he considered as the most important thing.
3) Greenspan’s praise of Clinton for “his tough, anti-deficit policies”, however, is like praising Clinton for “his” welfare reform, which he fought until he had no choice, then claimed credit for the more responsible Republican Congresses actions. The only sensible thing Clinton did at the time was to reappoint Greenspan as chairman, which everybody told Clinton to do.
Well, the truth hurts sometimes.
this is the least of it...
“AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
Your analysis is right on the mark. The Republican Congress got greedy and Bush let them do it. They thought that they could buy their hold on power just like the Democrats did. They were wrong, conservatives value their principles and punished the Republicans for forgetting it.
Unfortunately, we will all pay a big price for punishing the Republicans and we will see it in full force once the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress. But, it had to be done.
Especially that part about IMPOTUS' "consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth", right?
You trolls need to try a little harder to be less obvious. These uncontrollable orgasmic outbursts give you away every damn time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.