While Mr. Greenspan as Fed Chairman was the equivocator-in-chief, such an incisive statement was out of character. Here he utilized reductionism regarding the Anglo-American foreign policy in the Caspian Basin and its logical periphery of the Middle East to sell his book. Encircling China and frustrating Russia's attempts to encroach on Eastern Europe is the overarching foreign policy constellation. From the Silk Road Strategy Act to current policy implementations, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a logical corollary to that which came before. Clausewitz's famous line "War is merely a continuation of politics" is eminently applicable here. Greenspan isn't above using the shibboleths of the far left (it was all for oil!) to exploit enterprise capitalism's excesses. Now that Mr. Bernanke controls the money supply, circumlocution is no longer serviceable. However, since a text out of context is a pretext, perhaps this article traduced Mr. Greenspan's message by highlighting this pericope.
That business about the war being about oil has been bandied about for years, but I'm surprised to hear that opinion from Greenspan.
The rest of the article I'd agree with. Just like Reagan put the California budget into the black after years of democratic regime, so his successors in the Presidency put the whole country into the red. Again a question of lesser of the evils in the next election. The Republicans haven't done well, by any means, but I still see the Democrats as the greater evil, because traditionally, they're the tax-and-spend party.
However, fiscal and political mismanagement are different subjects, so everyone's free to argue his viewpoint. I personally think the government listened to Greenspan far too long as it is. His opinion more or less became fiscal law. Now he complains that his ideas weren't followed? Strange.
Bulgaria is the EU Country with the Largest Number of Women in the IT Sector
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Sold its Assets and Contracts in Bulgaria