Jim Cramer On Hardball: Greenspan's Oil Comment Was "Throw Away Line"
By Logan Murphy Monday Sep 17, 2007 4:40pm
On Monday's Hardball, CNBC's Jim Cramer and talk show host Ed Schultz sparred over the validity of Alan Greenspan's claim that the occupation of Iraq was all about the oil. Cramer, in his ranting and somewhat staged style claimed that Greenspan was flat out wrong and was upset that everyone was talking about the throwaway line from his book. Throwaway line?
Download | play 
Download | play
Schultz took him to task, pointing out the myriad reasons why oil played a central part in Bush and Cheney's decision to invade Iraq. Cramer went on to play the role of Bush apologist, spouting the lame, old we now know they were wrong, but invading Iraq was the right thing to do at the time talking points, but Schultz points out that Greenspan could have had an enormous effect on the Iraq debate had he made this statement before the invasion.
Login or Register to post comments.
so the Economy is in the toilet...and Cramer knows it...and he also knows the War has not helped the economy....and he says that - I watched it makes NO sense at all?? When did he start drinking the Koolaid?
Books don't have "throwaway lines."
Cramer's a multi-millionaire, so why is anyone surprised he's sipping the kool-aid?
I love Ed Schultz. His show reaches out to Midwestern moderate audiences and helps spread our message so well.
Cramer has lost his mind. He's an intelligent wackjob.
I think Ed Schultz should replace Tweety as soon as possible.
Cramer is an acknowledged Democrat. He just feels that the Greenspan book had far more important points. He's never drank the Bush cool-aide.
Is this the same Jim Cramer who has recently been vetted as one of the worst stock pickers on Wall Street by numerous financial publications of late?
Sad Money.
...and to think, two years ago, Cramer was preaching the Gospel of Greenspan, taking every word that he said as if it were from God Himself.
Cramer is a corproate lacky spinning the governments line. Greenspan, while a little late and a dollar short finally admitted why we're in Iraq, but he also made a very telling comment about the biggest fear that we are facing, and that's inflation.
Todays drop of 50 basis points in the Fed rate as well as a 50 point drop in the funds rate ( what banks charge each other to borrow ) will be the undoing of the US and turn us into a bananna republic if we're not there already. Forclosures hit an all time record today rising 130% from this time last year.
Bloomburg stated it best today.
Rogers, Faber Say Fed Rate Cuts Will Spur a Recession
Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Interest rate cuts by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will spur inflation, cause the U.S. dollar to collapse and help push the world's largest economy into recession, investors Jim Rogers and Marc Faber said.
``Every time the Fed turns around to save its friends on Wall Street, it makes the situation worse,' Rogers said in an interview from Shanghai. ``If Bernanke starts running those printing presses even faster than he's doing already, yes we are going to have a serious recession. The dollar's going to collapse, the bond market's going to collapse. There's going to be a lot of problems in the U.S.'…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601084&
;sid=aYBOOiT5mAO0&refer=stocks-END-
Alan Greenspan is another George Tenet. He should have said this years ago.
Actually, Schultz's point that Greenspan's bombshell might have done more good had he said something at the time was precisely what I was thinking when those quotes from the book started coming out. My first thought was that Greenspan's a coward. Sure, he might have caught some flak for telling people what he really thought, and he has spent his whole career (by necessity) being highly circumspect about each and every word he says. On the other hand, he was one of those rare creatures of modern politics that managed to maintain bipartisan respect over his long career. He's a person that the public and both parties might have listened to if he'd spoken up when it mattered. His thoughts now are as useless as they appear opportunistic - economic judgment suggests that those thoughts might sell more books.
Cramer, your crying on the air last month got you a .5 rate cut. Shut the fuck up. The big winners today were oil and Wall Street: the people that have their fist up Chimps ass. Regular Joe, fixed income and levelheaded saver just got their heads handed to them. Inflation will accelerate.
The nation debt, the war debt and personal debt will shrink along with the rise in inflation. The only problem is a blue-collar car will cost you $50,000, filling it up will cost $80.00 and a trip to the grocery store will cost you $200.00
A Band-Aid for spurting jugular, this economy/country is fucked.
Leave Cramer alone, he's a fucking democract and he's against the war. He's right when he correlated rise in gas prices with increasing chinese demand. But he's wrong when it comes to the administration being mislead into the war in Iraq. They wanted the war from the get go.
And if anyone thinks this war wasn't for oil I would like to quote Cheney:
"So where is the oil going to come from? ... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies,"
—Dick Cheney, 1999, while still CEO of the oil services company, Halliburton.
It really pisses me off that these sons-of-bitches decide to speak out AFTER they've left the administration - AFTER the damage has been done. They should all rot in hell.
Greenspan reportedly got 8 MILLION dollars for this book! Disgusting creep.
Boring Scott @ 7:
Cramer lost it when he started that Mad Money show. It's one of the worst pieces of crap on CNBC. Half the time, he gives a great spiel about how we need to buy XYZ stock, and then hits the big red "SELL" button (and vice-a-versa). He's totally making shit up while acting like its some XTREEEEEEME! sports show on ESPN3. If you really want to watch Mad Money that badly, just take this video clip and run a stock ticker scrolling along the bottom... it's the same exact thing.
From
Greenspan is working to spin the narrative away from the Mearsheimer-Walt argument, when the former chairman of the Federal Reserve begins parroting Noam Chomsky, something is amiss.
SickandTired @ 11:
greenspan a douchbag for the ages!!!rest in peace!
As the people are beginning to realize following the collapse of every reason given for occupying Iraq and this war, Greenspan's comment from his book was the absolute TRUTH. The sycophantic, profiteering Repukes can call it anything they like. THE PEOPLE 'know' the sad truth about this war - it's as obvious as the nose on a face now.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL. NEVER WAS ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. ALL OTHER REASONS WERE BOLD-FACED LIES.
OIL = Occupation Iraqi Oil
does bush really believe the masses are not more intelligent than himself?
Cramer was so animate " THEY BELIEVED " Saddam, 9-11, post 9-11 bumper sticker crap.
He doesn't KNOW for a fact WHAT they believed , only what they SAID and we do know according to Greg Palast , Cheney met with oil executives to discuss Iraq's Oil , in private meetings; that the Downing Street Memo (minutes), proved they had already made there mind up to invade, prior to diplomatic avenues were tried, plus Iraq is sitting on the second or largest OIL RESERVES in the world . If all Iraq has were Camels , we wouldn't be there .
Oh, the virtues OIL companies , oh they wouldn't participate in a war for oil, except if Cramer would read General Smedley Butler, who admitted war is a racket, and the U.S. military HE commanded, was used throughout the world for U.S. corporations. THAT'S A FACT CRAMER, you lying apologist for IMPERIALISM .
Not to mention the FIRST and only institution they protected during the initial invasion was.....drum roll....THE OIL MINISTRY . pLUS YOU CAN FIND MANY STATEMENTS FROM bRITISH dIPOLMATS , EX-cia, (RAY mCGOVERN) ALL ADMITTING IT WAS ABOUT oil .
fionnbarr @ 16:
It's called "blackmail". These are very high stakes and people will be doing jail time for it.
tyree @ 17:
Alan Greenspan served under several presidents over the span of his lengthy career and managed to remain bipartisan along the way....more than anyone can say for the disgusting Repukes in Congress who are taking full responsibility for helping to "tank this country". Anyone who thinks otherwise is a seriously delusional douchbag!
orion @ 21:
Tyree@17: I suspect that your ignorance is a direct result of your age - 17, by any chance? If so, we'll forgive you for being so naive.
I hate see Karl Marx's name dragged around. I believe he was first and foremost a genius economist. He just gets dragged into USSR, totalitarianism, etc, like he was some evil guy.
Go gett'em Eddie!
You da man now, dawg.
Big Eddie and Thom Hartman in 2008!
The oil companies are making unprecedented profits, the White House is staffed with former executives from oil companies and military contractors, and even the former Fed Chairman admits this whole thing is about oil... but this Kramer clown thinks suggesting oil that has something to do with the Iraq invasion is "outrageous".
These people must think we're all brain dead.
Cramer's initial funding came from one Marty Peretz.
I 'resemble' this line: "but Schultz points out that Greenspan could have had an enormous effect on the Iraq debate had he made this statement before the invasion." and don't agree with it either. Bush would have probably thrown Greenspan out
orion @ 21:
then your the douchbag! if this rat bastard had spoke up when it would have mattered thier would be 3000 americans still alive and 600/000 iraqys fuck him!fuck all of em like him speaking up now powell and the rest!!!!rest in peace douchbag defenders of the world!
Not so much 'throwaway' as throwing the crap at the lame duck.
The oil was important. After all, the government is run by oil men. Duh.
However, the real reason for the war was what Michael Ledeen and his American Enterprise Institute chums call 'creative destruction'. Those muslim nations are the biggest thorn in the side of globalization, hence Ledeen's call to 'cauldronize the Middle East'. Provoke maximum chaos, dress it up as 'incompetence' (these people don't give a hoot what you and I think of them, after all) and re-make, with huge military bases, in accordance with the globalists' vision. Then on to Iran. This vision is shared by the leadership of both parties, who are all members of the same globalist think tanks.
Greenspan is being disingenuous. To say the least. But he's allowed to be, being further up the greasy pole than Bush.
It's all about what the bankers want. Not their servants.
Cat Atomic @ 26:
Big Ed is right!!!!! Ed Schultz is missed here in central Ohio. Liberal radio died the first of the year when the station that had Schultz and Stephanie Miller decided to go to the far right with their programming. Fortunately for that same Clear Channel station, they now have the lowest ratings in the city.
Any guesses out there as to when the runs on banks start here? I wonder if Crammer will jump out a window on live tv?
Just for the sake of argument let's say "ok we didn't invade Iraq because of oil".
However, how many times has the right wing used it as one of the reasons we can't leave?.......I think the answer is "more than one could shake a stick at"
I think it's unlikely (or at least hope) that the ultimate reason for the invasion was oil. On the other hand I can't accept that it had nothing to do with it.
In Exxon we trust...
Consider this: In 2000, when Bush took office, gold was $273 per ounce, oil was $22 per barrel and the euro was worth $.87 per dollar. Currently, gold is over $700 per ounce, oil is over $80 per barrel, and the euro is nearly $1.40 per dollar.
So, when a Conservative writes something in their book, that has been through many proofreadings before getting published, then the Right Wingers get to call it "a throw away line", but when Moveon.org uses a rhyming play on words in a one day newspaper ad, then the same Conservatives get to howl perpetually as if the ad was etched for ever in the minds of the public.
Cramer's entire show is full of "throw away lines".
As a matter of fact, a newspaper turned to the stock results page and a handful of darts can be a better predictor of the market than cramer is. Repuke shill for the corporatists!!
I think it is a shame that Tweety would bring the likes of Crammer to the table to debate with Ed Schultz...
Am I the only one who remembers that they promised us "cheap" gasoline if we wnet into Iraq. I am still looking for the cheap gas. And, now they are saying if we go into Iran that oil will go to $300.00/barrel. That doesn't jive with cheap gas, either.
Why is it that MOST GOP celebrities are BIG BLOW HARDS? coincidence? I think not... This Cramer chap is about an egg short of a dozen.
fuck Jim Cramer. He called Jimmy Carter a "5th columnist" His ratings are shitty but gets airtime
These little bs repug sound bites are way too ridiculous and they are silly as hell. How anyone can believe cramer's bs phrase is batshit crazy. repugs love to repeat these little non catchable words.
It reminds me of rice's "sixteen words" crapola.
Jewel @ 40:
Cheap gas isn't worth one drop of US blood. Besides a barrel of oil cost only $4.
Also if greenspan knew it was about oil then he should have spoken up a long time ago. He's complicit in all this repug bs.
Please no one forget that in the run-up to the war Cramer kept salivating for the "exquisite moment" when the bombs started falling.
He is an ignorant, arrogant, incompetent S.O.B.
L.A. Confidential @ 33:
We don't have to worry about that because thanks to chimpy the dollar ain't going to be worth shit.
...Yes and Cheney's Energy Task force is just a gym club and PNAC is non-existant. Right
a race track tout of incredible character. he ain't the lemon drop kid
Cats out of the bag now boys and girls... We're just a pack of oil junkies... And our gub-mint will kill, cheat, steal, lie, whatever it takes to get that fix............Ya know, we lock up heroin dealers for life often... For essentially the same behavior.....go figure..JD
Can someone explain to me why a third-rate stock picker like Jim Cramer is being interviewed about foreign policy?
While I do appreciate the willingness of Alan Greenspan to go on record to make such a statement... it is in it self not wholly correct. There are multiple reasons, oil is just one of them, but an important part of the whole answer.
1. The Bush group did not want the control of the oil in Iraq to fall into the hands of extremists... the reasons are obvious.
2. The U.S. needed a strategic military base position in the Middle East, and Iraq was the easiest target (so the thought went with the Bush group) to take and control.
3. Iran has always been of great concern to Bush because of the nuke issue. Reasons 1 & 2 go hand-in-hand with #3, along with the protection of Israel.
4. Bush's economic policies were/are a total flop, and would have driven the U.S. economy down a destructive path. War economics was the answer he chose. He also had cooporate "heads" to repay favors to, and Saddam played right into his hands.
While there was a great concern for the WMD's that Bush has said was the reason for war in Iraq, those types of weapons there were known about and were controllable. It's those WMD's in surrounding countries in the hands of extremists that was the major concern... and still is. Saddam was controllable even though he was a nut case.
Everything that accurately calls out Republican lies and corruption is a "throw away llne".
#52) 1. The Bush group did not want the control of the oil in Iraq to fall into the hands of extremists… the reasons are obvious.
Not sure where you get your info. I prefer the fact based reporting of Greg Palast. He explains exactly why they took out Saddam:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/338
By the way its been a big two days for Greg Palast. The college student who was tasered today was asking John Kerry a question from Greg Palast's book Armed Madhouse. And yesterday the Palast investigative team revealed that "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is a total hoax. As usual the corporate media refuses to say his name or report any of his findings. If we had an honest media they'd be fighting to get Mr. Palast on first for an exclusive.
http://www.buzzflash.com/artic.....utors/1309
You can watch the video here: http://english.aljazeera.net/N.....2A844C.htm
Jesus, Cramer! Have a heart attack already and shut your witless trap!
I have to say it makes me angry that influential people like Greenspan now come out when they have a book to sell. Where were they when their words could have actually made a difference?
Oil? Aren't these guys listening? Its all about Freedumb.
I can't improve on Dave Chappell's Black Bush skit, when a female reporter asks the resident if OIL is the reason for invading Iraq.
"Oil? What? Is you cooking, Bitch?"
Jim Cramer just lost a viewer. If he can't be honest about Iraq, I can't trust him for investment advice. Cramer's a pretty smart guy, and that means he's lying through his teeth. To believe that crap about the war you either have to be stupid, or in on it.
tHeGaMeOfLiFe @ 44:
I know; I was being sarcastic. Sorry you missed it.
L.A. Confidential @ 33:
The media whores owe it to the people to take a dive on TV. For years they've cheerleaded every degenerate policy that crawled out of the asses of the bush gang and went into overdrive making it seem like it was good for Mr./Mrs. Little Person. The sidewalks could use a bit of color.
Peace @ 54:
Greg Palast can say what he wants, and he will make money doing that no doubt, but what he has to say doesn't change one thought to what I had to say. Bush wanted a land base in Iraq, and Saddam was not going to allow that. Saddam was under great pressure from the "world order" and so he played games with the oil market. If you were Saddam and had no way to militarily fight back, what would you have done? This I can say with absolute certainty... Before the attack of Iraq, I paid my bills, my family ate 2 meals a day, we had a night out for pleasure once a month, and I had change in my pocket. Now we scrape to have one meal a day, my bills are very hard to keep on time and often they are not, I parked my truck and I drive a '89 Escort to maximize gas mileage, there are NO pleasure times, and I cannot rub 2 pennies together on more days than I work in a week. I haven't had a raise in 4 years, yet my taxes have doubled along with my home and health insurance. Bush's policies suck... at least they do from the poor working man's view!
I used to like Cramer, but now I can't stand him.
"I can't believe that. I am cynical and I'm not going with that. That's just too outrageous."
Hasn't anybody read the history of this country before!? Believe it Cramer! It's just the icing on the cake.
There are many reasons for the invasion of Iraq. I personally believe it was planned to give George Bush and the Republican party the "political capital" they needed to seize and hold political power. Here are the two best atricles I have read on this subject.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-22.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_frie...
Cramer is a nutcase.
since when does greenspan make suggestions as to who needs to be taken out? it seems a little beyond his job description.
Of course, the Iraq invasion by BushCo was all about oil.
Haven't you noticed...BushCo doesn't do diplomacy or negotiations very well, if at all.
And we all know that BushCo hates treaties.
On the other hand, BushCo does love wars, and bullying, and gaming the system, and playing lying, deceitful hardball ideologically-driven politics.
Diplomacy? Negotiations? Treaties? HA. That's for girlie men.
Wars, death, destruction, blood flowing in the streets, children dying horribly, people suffering...why, that's for macho cowboys like our Glorious Leader...who definitely has put the bully back into the bully pulpit.
[...] there’s no way I know of to put the next video on this post so I’ll just give you the link right here. Jim Cramer tries to talk some sense into Ed Shultz about what Greenspan meant in his book The Age [...]
Never forget that the war was code-named "Operation Iraqi Liberation" until someone pointed out that the initials were O.I.L. That's when they renamed it "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Jim Cramer is a BushCo scumbag.
Ed is right on the money and it is a shame that we have the burden of all of these other media freaks all over our networks, like this Cramer guy.
He is stupid as hell and wants to continue to insert his warped view of what Bush and his administration are all about.
He got it all wrong just like all the rest of them and oh what a shame for the American people they are still all over the air waves and if we are not careful they are going to select our next president and they are working up to that right now.
The corporations have baught and paid to continue to screw this country up and if you don't believe it just watch and see.
One freeper argument against Greenspan's assessment is that if this war was about the oil then where is the oil? The failure of the administration to exact its tribute (in the form of oil revenues) is presented as evidence that the administration wasn't after the oil in the first place. I personally think the war's motives are a more nuanced mix of greed, hate, and arrogance. And, of course, the Bush administration standby, stupidity. "How could we have known???" Indeed!
Cramer seems to be on some kind of drug. He explodes all the time. He needs a nap.
I suppose Jim thinks that we would be in Iraq
if their primary export was Arugula?
I don't think that the war was JUST about Oil. The Neo-Con Artists certainly wanted Oil from Iraq, but they also wanted to reshape the Middle East into something more "pro-American" Heck of a job, guys!
Login or Register to post comments.