Knox one again you have gone off half cocked. Do you have trouble reading and comprehending what you have read? The only misquoting that is going on is from you. You seem to have great difficulty seeing what is actually written as opposed to what you think someone wrote. For your information and edification my original comment is quoted below.

"The wonderful thing about a book is you can take a phrase or two out of context and use to reinforce about any point you want to make. I haven't read Greenspan's Book and probably won't but I suggest that those who wish to comment on it read the whole thing and draw their own conclussions from what he said. "

You will notice that nowhere did I make any comment pro or con about Greenspan's book. Since the book came out Monday, I doubt that you or anybody else except the media who received advanced copies, have read it completely. You and others on the other hand have taken a few sound bytes from the media and are going off like you have memorized every word in the book.

My reasons for not reading the book are many and vaired they include the fact that books by economists are usually slightly less spellbinding than the EPA regulations. The book is the memoirs and personal opinions of yet another retired goverment employee who just can't seem to walk away from the job. Reading Greenspan's book will not increase my bank account it will in fact decrease it by the cost of yet another dull book.

I personally don't give a big rat's pattot what he has to say one way or the other. If I did, I would buy the book and read it and draw my own conclusions from the entire context of what he said rather than a 15 second blurb on CNN.

As for knee jerk reactions, your selective amnesia has conveniently allowed you to forget your first comment on this thread, let me retort for you.

"Spidey, Spidey, Spidey....... If you could please, if just for one moment, pull your head out of Bush's rectum..... "

You constantly want to apply a double standard here, one where you are allowed to say anything, throw temper tantrums and call people names, yet you demand civility and courtesy for yourself. What goes around comes around if you can't take it don't dish it out.

THE MAIN THING WRONG WITH POLITICS IS THE POLITICIANS.when will they justa speaka the english they are all full of it.they all spend time sucking each others ass depending on what party they belong to but no doubt always leaving us in the dark to debate what the hell theyre saying Its about time we put someone in there that has nothing to do with either side but that is on our side all this debate over what, nothing is going to change until we get them all out. we can debate until the next idiot is voted in BY THE ELECTORAL VOTES.NOT US JUST SOME MORE SUCKASSES.When will we ever have a government voted in by the people ...never all the idiots have too much of a foot hold and you and i will always be left in the dark so why debate it.They all have their own agenda and theyre all full of ****

if his book had pics of him & andrea mitchell having sex it would sell more copies...
just a thought

Oh Davinci, thank you for a huge laugh, I never thought of it but you are exactly right. That laid back sense of humor of yours is deadly.

Forge:

Before YOU go half-cocked with asinine attacks on other posters, maybe you should remove your head out of Cheney's ass and read what I wrote. Or are you THAT lacking in basic intellegence and reading/comprehension skills to do so?

I never said that you said ALL books were taken out of context.
I said:
"If someone hasn't read the book-or admits they probably won't-how can they say that things are taken out of context?"
OK, I never mentioned you specifically. Oh, wait. There you go assuming again.

Forge, try thinking before you write. On second thought, don't think. Everybody knows that nothing good comes from you thinking.

Knox the obvious reference was to what I had written because I was the only one that posted the comment, now you are trying to back water claiming I am off the mark and your comment was a generalization. Perhaps you should take your own advice and fall back on Neocon mantra # 14: "I misquoted myself". I guess it is really my fault because I forgot to remind you yesterday that it's time to replace the tinfoil in hour hat Further you obviously have some problem comprehending what I wrote your you would not have started this whole thing in the first place. My response was clear and concise, you read something into it that wasn't there like you usually do and used that to go off on your usual tirade about the current administration. Then you run around ranting that anyone who disagrees with you must have their head in Bush or Cheney's rectum. I guess in your case maturity does not come with age.

Well, Forge, I was waiting for you to bring me my tinfoil But let's not forget YOUR usual rants 'n' tirades against anyone who dares breathe a word against your patron Saint Bush. With most of the country finally getting wise to the boy, it's good to see that YOU'RE willing to go down with the sinking ship . That's gotta be good for something. Just can't put my finger on what . Well, work beckons, gotta go save some lives. Later, folks.

well at least I will go down standing on my own two feet rather than groveling at the feet of my Islamic Masters like you.

OK, back to the topic of the day class!

And on that, it looks like 'spider' has been leading everyone on a wild goose chase.

The title claims: "... The Left lies about Greenspan".

Our fearless 'spider' based these unfounded accusations, on his personnal faboulistic interpretation that somehow, some unnamed liberal, Democrat or other vile form of socialistic looking silhouette, would have somewhere, somehow, at sometime, suggested that Greenspan had made a statement which according to allseing and allhearing 'spider', Greenspan had apparently never made.

'spider' wrote in his opening statement:
"... We have all heard that Greenspan said the war was about oil, but what he really said is that he believed we should attack Iraq to protect the world's oil supply."

Well, putting our best 'truth researching teams to task, and thousands of hours of rigorous scrutiny, the verdict is clearer than clear!!!

Greenspan said, without the help of any 'unnamed liberal, Democrat or other vile form of socialistic looking silhouette', "... the Iraq War is largely about oil." reported on the publicity surrounding his book, reported in the sept. 17th article from the Washington Post: '... made the striking comment in his new memoirs...", as well as a news clip where Greenspan himself, repeats the comment himself.

So 'spider' I invite you to do the right thing as any good Christian would do when faced with the serious sin of calumny:

PERSONAL AND SINCERE APOLOGIES TO ALL LIBERAL, DEMOCRAT AND OTHER FORMS OF LIBERAL THINKING US CITIZENS, FOR JUDGING AND ACCUSING THEM PUBLICLY, OF LYING WHERE NO LYING HAD OCCURRED, THUS CONSISTING IN A GROSS ATTACK ON THE REPUTATION OF ALL SAID LIBERALS ET ALL.
YOU ARE ALSO TO SEND 10.00$ us TO ALL SAID LIBERALS ET ALL, AS JUST REPERATION OF YOUR SIN.
FINALLY YOU ARE TO RECITE 450 'HAIL MARIES' AND 450 'OUR FATHER'S IN FRONT OF A CROWD MADE-UP OF 450 LIBERALS ET ALL.

This penitence will absolve you of the sin you have committed, and restitute your christian honor on this forum.

Voil,

Greenspan has said that he believes that the reason for the war in Iraq should have been for oil, but he clearly states of the WMD reasoning for the war "I have no reason to disbelieve that indeed was our official motive and the reason why we went to war". Some people on the left, HAVE lied about what Greenspan wrote. Not everyone on the left, but I thought you guys would be able to cut me a little slack since I didn't want to write a banner-like title of "Liberal Politicians and Newspapers intentionally misquote Alan Greenspan" Anyways, I feel comfortable that I didn't lie, and I have transcribed a section of an interview Greenspan gave to prove that what I posted was the truth. On a further note, it is telling that you haven't once posted a link or a full article, you simply post little snippets pasted together with your own sarcastic remarks, I think that displays your own desire for the truth to be known.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAto1KTnMPY
===========================================================
"Uhhhh I was never of the opinion that the reason should be uhhh MWDs and more importantly I have no reason to disbelieve that indeed was our official motive and the reason why we went to war, but my uhh I never thought that was a terribly critical issue"
===========================================================

'spider',

Greenspan said:
"... the Iraq War is largely about oil." reported on the publicity surrounding his book, reported in the sept. 17th article from the Washington Post, and found in his book.

Your opening post suggested, that Greenspan hadn't said the above cited quote, and thus the 'left lies' accusation of yours.

Nothing other than these elements are necessary to establish that your post is misleading and calumnous.

It's not the end of the world. I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm not even judging you in any way shape or form. Just that your opening post is misleading and wrong, and on that basis, your title calumnous. That's all.

If you wish to re-phrase your opening statements, and clearly establish what exact lie you accuse the left of perpetrating, be my guest, and clear-up the confusion.

Voil,

The lie is taking his quote out of context. Alan Greenspan says "the Iraq War is largely about oil" and then CLARIFIES by stating that the US position is that the war was about WMDs and he has no reason to doubt that, but he believes that oil should have been the focus. It's like taking a single quote out of the Bible and saying "This is proof that God supports slavery". Greenspan's book is longer than a sentence, it's longer than a paragraph, it's a freaking book. By ignoring everything else and focusing on a single sentence, the people who reported this story were lying to their readers. I will not back down from that position, mischaracterizing is lying.

'spider',

You seem to enjoy skating on very thin ice, with serious intent to mislead!

Am I to understand that you're suggesting 'the left' lied simply because journalists, who's motives you're condemning outright, asked Greenspan the following question with respect to the infamous "the Iraq War was largely about oil":

'are you suggesting (asking Greenspan) that this summed up the administration's position on the war in Iraq?".
That was the essential question which allowed Greenspan to clarify the comment as his own, and that he had never 'heard' member of the administration say it per se.
In fact Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."

There is nothing here that would make anyone conclude to 'misleading', 'mischaracterization' or 'lying'.

The only misleading here is your own. You are accusing the left of lying, without a trace of the lie which you accuse 'them' (the left, or this unnamed part of the left). Are all journalists 'left'? Are all questions from journalists mischaracterizing? That is the thin ice of argumentation I'm referring to here 'spider'.

YOU are misleading'spider',
... YOU are "mischaracterizing' 'spider', and according to your own logic of association, YOU are lying 'spider'.

At best, you are performing an 'extreme' twisting of facts, to suit a personnal set of beliefs you wish to entertain about some of your compatriots (your so-called 'left'), 'they lie' syatematically without any need to demonstrate it, distinct from yourself, or the 'friends' you defend whom, it seems according to your convictions, NEVER LIE, again with no need to demonstrate!!!

HUM!!!

voileazur,

You seem convinced that YOUR words have more importance than facts. I have transcribed the relavant part of an interview with Alan Greenspan. You come back with your opinions and suggestions that I'm lying. You however, have yet to supply a single link or more than a half a sentence as a quote. While I have accused unnamed journalists on the left of lying and offered links and quotes to prove it, you have directly accused me of lying and you haven't offered even a moticum of evidence. I find your tactic of calling me a liar repeatedly and never offering proof to support your position to be very childish and it smacks of someone who knows they are wrong, but desires to continue debating because they believe they can win by being bullheaded. I wish you a good day, I have no further interest in discusing this issue with you.

'spider',

You wrote:
"... While I have accused unnamed journalists on the left of lying and offered links and quotes to prove it, you have directly accused me of lying and you haven't offered even a moticum of evidence...."

I have provided all the necessary references 'spider': your accusating title to this post, and your opening statements together with the single link (not 'links' (Washington Post article) you provided.

You claim that your single link (W.P.article) holds 'quotes' which represents 'PROOF' of your accusations. Where are those quotes, and more importantly, how would the yet mysterious quotes constitute 'PROOF' to support your alleged accusations.

I repeat, you are misleading, mischaracterizng, and, according to your YOUR own logic of association, you are lying.

There is no proof in anything you have provided which supports your calumnous accusations.

As for your insinuations and opinions about my tactics, there is not much to say other than, it strikes me as a perfect miror of your own attitude on these forums.

I am not bullheaded in th least bit 'spider'. I am simply observing and demonstrating that there is nothing in your opening post, or the single W.P. link you provided which supports the very large and calumnous accusation you made in the title of your this thread, for which you are the host.

Again, misleading, mischaracterizng, and, according to your YOUR own logic of association, you are lying.

In that spirit, I invited you earlier to clear-up the misleading and mscharacterization. I wrote:

''... If you wish to re-phrase your opening statements, and clearly establish what exact lie you accuse the left of perpetrating, be my guest, and clear-up the confusion.''

You haven't taken me up on this sincere and reasoanble invitation, and chose instead to regress to a delusional and petty cat fight mode.

Simply answer the invitation, and provide a case for your accusation, and we will be done here. Your ''I have no further interest in discusing this issue with you'' at this stage, smacks of this very childish attitude your were alluding to in your earlier comment.

Finally 'spider', if you are susceptible to the point where you accept no objective critique of the topics you post and host, I strongly suggest you refrain from posting. Being open to dialogue, and critique frm others, is sort of an implicit pre-requisite to posting and debating on these public forums.

With all due respect to you personally 'spider'.

spell check...reasoanble ....insert: reasonable

no thanks necessary...

back to the show....

ONE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html

TWO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAto1KTnMPY

1 Link x 2 = Links

Your interest in the truth is truely awe inspiring.

You offered 0 links. 0 x 0 = 0

This is what...three times you have called me a liar in this thread? And so far, you haven't offered a single link or any proof that I am lying, just your assertion.

Spider, I find it amazing how you never have a problem with the words liar or lie when you use them on others.
You wanna give?
You better be able to take.

invisible,

I have seen poems written about how much I am hated and I have seen poems and stories written about killing me. I haven't once gone to the moderators to do anything about the people who do those things, so I can take being called a liar. If you read my post and don't add your own spin, you will see that I was commenting that his only proof that I'm a liar is his opinion. I have offered an article and an interview with Greenspan to prove my point and he has only offered his opinion. I'm not complaining that he called me a liar, I'm pointing out how laughable his claim is considering that only I have been brave enough to post an actual link to support my position.

are you boys still battling each other?
you guys just don't get tired.