<div> </div>
<div>Mark et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Greenspan is obviously speaking more "freely" regarding his opinions about the Iraq war, than he was before retiring as chairman of the Federal Reserve. He has even recently spoken critically regarding some aspects of the Bush Administration's economic policies. But Krugman's dismay at Greenspan's "silence" (my wording, not Krugman's) regarding aspects of the Bush Administration's economic policies while they were being implemented when he was Fed. Reserve Chairman, also applies to his silence regarding the invasion of Iraq before the invasion.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nonetheless, I am pleased Greenspan is now speaking out on the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. His voice helps to reinforce the astonishingly disturbing conclusion that appears inescapable: that the rationale for invading Iraq that was sold to the American public was based on deception.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course this silence, and thus complicity, with the invasion of Iraq, regarding those who did not engage in aggressive public critical scrutiny of the Bush Administration rationale for invading Iraq, applies across the board: the US Congress, the US media, and most of the American public.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The media especially failed in it's role as one of the pillars of our Democratic system. The media, the Fourth Estate, as it is called, with the other three pillars of our Democratic system being the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government, served often as cheerleaders for the invasion. The media's role as the Fourth Estate obligates it to expose government lies or deceptions of the public about critical issues; and invading another nation, thus taking the US to war, must rate as one of the most profound and important decisions.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, many in the media at the time of the Iraq invasion had valid worries about their careers being in jeopardy if they appeared in the least bit "unpatriotic." Thus their failure in some cases to be responsible journalists fulfilling their critical role in the Fourth Estate. And many journalists fell prey to the blinding effects of fear and group think patriotism. They did not deliberately remain silent. They really believed the invasion was the correct action based on what they were being told by the Bush administration.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> <br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/17/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Mark Solomon</b> <<a href="mailto:msolomon@moscow.com">msolomon@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2170661,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12" target="_blank">Paul Krugman, University of Chicago economist and NYTimes columnist has a scathing piece on Greenspan and his revisionist history of his involvement with the Bush tax cuts.
</a></div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>m.</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><font color="#666666" size="-1"><b>OPINION</b></font> <font color="#000000" size="-1"> | September 17, 2007</font><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ex=1190692800&en=d32c2835aba6487a&ei=5070&emc=eta1" target="_blank">
<b><span></span>Op-Ed Columnist: Sad Alan's Lament</b><br><font color="#000000" size="-1">By PAUL KRUGMAN</font></a></div>
<div><font color="#000000">If Alan Greenspan wasn't intending to lend crucial support to the Bush tax cuts, he had ample opportunity to set the record straight when it could have made a difference.</font></div>
<div><span class="e" id="q_11514eae8e3d2db2_1">
<div><br> </div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2170661,00.html?gusrc=rss&" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2170661,00.html?gusrc=rss&
</a><span></span>feed=12</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">...Mr Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview with the Guardian that the invasion of Iraq was aimed at protecting Middle East oil reserves: "I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point."
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">In the book Mr Greenspan writes: "Whatever their publicised angst over Saddam Hussain's 'weapons of mass destruction', American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbours a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">-----------</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</blockquote>
<div><br> </div></span></div></div></blockquote></div><br>