"I Ply My Trade In The Land Of King DollarWhere You Get Paid And Your Silence Passes As Honor .. ."

Well, looks like Alan Greenspan has gone and stepped in 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.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W. Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

It's bad enough that "Maestro" Greenspan is criticizing the President on his economic policy. But saying that-which-must-not-be-said about the motivations of the Bush/Cheney White House? That will get Alan some serious blow-back from the Fox News/Wall Street Journal/Talk Hate Radio crew.

I wouldn't be surprised if, all of a sudden, they start telling us what a disaster Greenspan was for the economy, and how Bush saved us all by replacing him with Bernanke.

So, before these disappear down the memory hole, some excerpts from the Wall Street Journal. First, from the Editor of the Wall Street Journal, in those halcyon days of August, 2001 -

I've known Alan Greenspan so long I met Ayn Rand at a going-away party the first time he joined government back in the Ford administration. From long lunches in an aerie above Wall Street, I can testify he has one of the most complex minds I've ever encountered.

Even before he joined the central bankers' club, it was hard but fascinating to follow the twists and turns of his analysis. But somehow he always managed to tie the strands together into a sensible whole, coming out in what seemed to me the right place. So with Alan as Federal Reserve chairman, I've tended to swallow my doubts about a discretionary monetary policy, guided by the intuition of one man rather than by explicit and consistent rules and guideposts.

And indeed, Mr. Greenspan's guidance has served the republic well, with a long run of prosperity and increasingly stable prices.

And, from when Mr. Greenspan turned the reins over to Mr. Bernanke in 2005 -

When Alan Greenspan was nominated to succeed Paul Volcker as Federal Reserve Chairman in 1987, financial markets tanked. The more positive reaction to Ben Bernanke's selection yesterday shows how much the markets have come to trust Mr. Greenspan and how they expect Mr. Bernanke to run monetary policy in the same fashion.

He'll have a hard act to follow . . .

I should note that both columns were written with a critical eye on some aspect of Mr. Greenspan's tenure, but the fact that they have to bow to him first, before suggesting some way he could have done better, shows the esteem in which our right-ward leaning friends have held him.

Now, let's see if the knives come out. That's always been the "Bushie" way. The other side is never "wrong", they are always completely, utterly, and cravenly wrong-headed about everything.

Pass the popcorn . . .