Neocons and war drums.

[Blown 472]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/ir...-1997.htm#iraq
As you read thru, note how many times oil comes up in their talks about saddam.

[Freak]

Iraq in the not to distant past sucessfully switched from the dollar to the euro for purchasing oil. We are switching them back.
Also it is interesting how greenspan switched gears on national debt and the dollar after the election. This is one reason I wanted Bush to win. In a second term you get some of the truth. The global econonmy is very sensitve and we are walking a very thin tight rope.
Greenspan: Appetite for Dollar to Dwindle
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The insatiable foreign demand for dollar holdings would eventually fall as investors diversify, U.S. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) said on Friday in remarks that landed hard on the dollar.
Greenspan told a banking conference in Frankfurt the United States should cut its record budget gap to help narrow the shortfall in its current account and avoid a need to offer higher rates of return to retain foreign investment and painful economic consequences.
"Current account deficits, even large ones, have been defused without significant consequences, (but) we cannot become complacent," Greenspan warned in a prepared text of his remarks, which was made available in Washington.
He was speaking ahead of weekend meetings in Berlin of the Group of 20 wealthy and developing economies, at which the tumbling dollar will likely be a topic for discussion.
Greenspan said cutting the U.S. budget gap would be the best way to boost domestic saving and lessen America's reliance on foreigners to fund the huge shortfall in the current account, a broad trade measure that includes investment flows.
"Alternative approaches to reducing our current account imbalance by reducing domestic investment or inducing recession to suppress consumption obviously are not constructive long-term proposals," he said.
The Fed chief said an eventual desire by foreign investors to cut the risk of holding too many dollars may lead them away from U.S. assets or lead them to seek higher rates of return.
He warned this would elevate the cost of financing of the U.S. current account deficit and render it "increasingly less tenable."
"We see only limited indications that the large U.S. current account deficit is meeting financing resistance," Greenspan said. "Yet, net claims against residents of the United States cannot continue to increase forever in international portfolios at their recent pace."
"It seems persuasive that, given the size of the U.S. current account deficit, a diminished appetite for adding to dollar balances must occur at some point," Greenspan said.
The dollar hit a new four-year low against the Japanese yen after his comments and fell against the euro, pushing the European currency back toward recent record highs.
"What jumps out is (Greenspan) spending so much time talking about U.S. net foreign debt. It seems like he has pooh-poohed that issue more in the past and is a bit more preoccupied with it now".

[Freak]

This one explains it better. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6529487/

[HighRoller]

What exactly is a "NEOCON" anyways?

[Blown 472]

What exactly is a "NEOCON" anyways?
I am sure if you google it you will find it.

[HighRoller]

Is referring to Bush as a "NeoCon" like referring to Clinton as a "New Democrat" instead of a socialist liberal like he really is?

[Steve 1]

I am sure if you google it you will find it.
While you are at it look up "Neocom" for a lock on 472 anyway nothing here time to move on.

[HM]

While you are at it look up "Neocom" for a lock on 472 anyway nothing here time to move on.
Yup, looks like Blown is doing some more dumpster diving. Not a pretty site. Perhaps he is taking a break from being a "problem solver" at his "good job" which he makes "really good money." :boxed:

[Steve 1]

Yup, looks like Blown is doing some more dumpster diving. Not a pretty site. Perhaps he is taking a break from being a "problem solver" at his "good job" which he makes "really good money." :boxed:
Sounds like a Liberal dream job where they can be wrong all their little life and never get fired!

[Blown 472]

Yup, looks like Blown is doing some more dumpster diving. Not a pretty site. Perhaps he is taking a break from being a "problem solver" at his "good job" which he makes "really good money." :boxed:
Here, I copied it for you, I understand it might be hard to read with your head inflated like it is.
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick