Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

[Janett_Reno]

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2461214.ece

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.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2461214.ece

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.

Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

No matter what, that is the true reason we went to war. It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it had to do with weapons that can destroy oil wells. I am 1000% against this war, and for many personal reasons. #1 reason is we had no reason being there and I lost a dear family member there as well. I fully support ALL troops in ANY war. I served my time in the armed forces, but was blessed to never have to go to war, but I was more than willing to fight for my country at anytime. But, I am against this war!!!!!

[DevinFuture]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Silk Smoov again.

[dude1394]

As usual...Janett is a little premature.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=7&cset=true

Greenspan clarified his remarks in an interview with the Washington Post, telling the newspaper that although securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with a case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said. "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?,' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive."

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

No matter what, that is the true reason we went to war. It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it had to do with weapons that can destroy oil wells.

Another of the 300million opinions. Thanks for your service...I also have family members there and do support it.

However the above statement is false as you cannot find a shred of evidence to support it.

[mcsluggo]

Geez, whether you support the decision or not you HAVE to know that oil played a large point in the equation of benefits from going there, don't you?

there are lots of screwed up countries with oppressive regimes, but that are considered to be of les "strategic importance"... what is the strategic importance of Iraq?
1. it has oil.
2. it is near lots of other countries that have oil.
3. it is Islamic

For what it is worth, I don't think the fact that oil played a part in the strategic decision is by itself damning at all. Why shouldn't it? I really don't understand why people try to deny this fact... with out the denial there really wouldn't be any good cause for "AHA...GOTCHA!!" moments from the anti war people on THIS front... but as usual this administration chooses to obfuscate everything, and this lack of transparency EVENTUALLY makes everything harder... for them but especially for the country.

[Maringa]

I sure hope it was for oil....it would have been stupid to go there if it wasn't for oil. I wish the administration would have been upfront on this manner and not been afraid of the anti war crowd and point out that this was one of the primary objectives - maintaining assurance of oil supply to the world economy. Without the stupid stuff, you and I wouldn't be here on this website spewing each our own opinions because the electrons that move across the screen would have been halted due to lack of electricity, or we wouldn't be able to afford paying for our internet service because of our lack of jobs.

[DevinFuture]

I wonder...
Is Greenspan implying that the war should not have been fought or that it should, but that oil was the reason it should have been?
I looked at the article, but I could not tell.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by DevinFuture

I wonder...
Is Greenspan implying that the war should not have been fought or that it should, but that oil was the reason it should have been?
I looked at the article, but I could not tell.

That was answered 4 posts ago.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said. "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?,' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive."

Fighting for oil is one thing. And it's fine to do since we're so dependent on it. We'd fight for water if we had to, right? We'd fight for land, right? Oil is a vital resource. Someday when Monty Burns tries to block out the sun, I hope Janett is willing to send in the marines.

Fighting for oil profits is another thing. The leftwing loons think that the war was fought for oil profits. For Haliburton. For Dick Cheney. Greenspan's not talking about fighting for oil profits in that sense, but when someone is obsessed with a single idea, then that's what they'll see.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Geez, whether you support the decision or not you HAVE to know that oil played a large point in the equation of benefits from going there, don't you?

there are lots of screwed up countries with oppressive regimes, but that are considered to be of les "strategic importance"... what is the strategic importance of Iraq?
1. it has oil.
2. it is near lots of other countries that have oil.
3. it is Islamic

For what it is worth, I don't think the fact that oil played a part in the strategic decision is by itself damning at all. Why shouldn't it? I really don't understand why people try to deny this fact... with out the denial there really wouldn't be any good cause for "AHA...GOTCHA!!" moments from the anti war people on THIS front... but as usual this administration chooses to obfuscate everything, and this lack of transparency EVENTUALLY makes everything harder... for them but especially for the country.

It's shouldn't be damning but as dubya and cheney said to greenspan, they can't talk about that. Just this post shows you the level of intelligence out there in the "blood-for-oil" crowd.

Janett couldn't think past the potential political headline long enough to actually think (or read what greenspan really meant).

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Maringa

I sure hope it was for oil....it would have been stupid to go there if it wasn't for oil. I wish the administration would have been upfront on this manner and not been afraid of the anti war crowd and point out that this was one of the primary objectives - maintaining assurance of oil supply to the world economy. Without the stupid stuff, you and I wouldn't be here on this website spewing each our own opinions because the electrons that move across the screen would have been halted due to lack of electricity, or we wouldn't be able to afford paying for our internet service because of our lack of jobs.

I can't recall but I'm sure that statements about an aggressive sadaam in such a strategic area (i.e. most of the worlds oil reserves) could not be tolerated.

No one would give a crap about the whole sandy joint it wasn't so strategic to worldwide economics. If there wasn't oil there then the islamics would be knocking around with sticks trying to do something.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by dude1394

No one would give a crap about the whole sandy joint it wasn't so strategic to worldwide economics. If there wasn't oil there then the islamics would be knocking around with sticks trying to do something.

well, they have been breeding terrorism like (well like whatever you want to think of) for some time. The hope of a stabilizing force for good (well, as good as Israel and Turkey might be) is fair motivation, and cause for interest. And that would be so whether Osama had gotten all his money from oil or from franchising desert MacDonalds.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

well, they have been breeding terrorism like (well like whatever you want to think of) for some time. The hope of a stabilizing force for good (well, as good as Israel and Turkey might be) is fair motivation, and cause for interest. And that would be so whether Osama had gotten all his money from oil or from franchising desert MacDonalds.

True...but they wouldn't have oil dollars funding them to travel into the west and all over formenting this. There wouldn't be inviduals funding this wacky stuff if there wasn't oil money involved. I mean you don't see the Hutsi's/Tutsi's fomenting worldwide terrorism.

[dude1394]

All I can say to this piece is BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVISIMO!

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ome-commentary

While there are significant long-term risks associated with such contractual arrangements, the well-informed actor, motivated by some historically recognized intangibilities -- maximization of regalement, binary association, et al -- finds that those outweigh the downside risks. To wit, would you -- exigencies and externalities permitting -- enter into a matrimonial association of indefinite duration with me?"

That's not a direct quote, of course, just my speculation. But on Sunday's "60 Minutes" profile of Alan Greenspan, we learned that the former Fed chairman dated NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell for 13 years before he asked her to marry him. "He used Fed-speak," Mitchell recalled. "Who knew he was proposing? I couldn't figure it out."

Greenspan observers were similarly befuddled by a seemingly plain-spoken statement in his memoir, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World."

Greenspan wrote that the Iraq war was "largely about oil," according to an excerpt in the Washington Post on Saturday. The statement quickly raced around the globe, with headlines like this one from Britain's Daily Telegraph: "Iraq was about oil -- Greenspan attacks U.S. motivation for war." The Independent began its own editorial by declaring: "The credibility of President George Bush's policy on Iraq has suffered another devastating blow. It is all the more powerful for having come not from a political enemy but from someone who was showered with plaudits by the administration."

The quoted phrase ran through the Sunday news shows and the blogosphere like a bad intestinal virus. On CNN's "Late Edition," Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Burlingame) was asked if he agreed with Greenspan. "To a very large extent I agree with him, and I think it is very remarkable that it took Alan Greenspan all these many years and being out of office [to state] the obvious."

Well, that is very interesting. But first we should clear the air about something. Greenspan claims that the quote was taken out of context. Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil passes every day. Hussein could have sent the price of oil way past $100 a barrel, which would have inflicted chaos on the global economy.

In other words, Greenspan favored the war on the grounds that it would stabilize the flow of oil, even though that wasn't the war's political underpinning. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan told Woodward, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

So let's get back to Lantos, the California congressman who agreed with the misconstrued Greenspan that it was "obvious" we went to war for oil. What's funny -- though not really ha-ha funny -- is that Lantos voted for the war. If it was so obviously a war for oil, why did he vote for it? Unless, of course, he thinks it's hunky-dory to go to war because of oil -- though that didn't sound like what he was trying to say.

As several other politicians and officials noted over the weekend, no White House briefer ever told Congress that this was a war for oil. The debates in Congress didn't say this was a war for oil. Bush never gave a single speech saying this was a war for oil. (If oil was all Bush wanted, he hardly needed to go to war to get it.) So why is it so "obvious" to Lantos that it was a war for oil?

Perhaps the answer is that when it comes to bashing Bush about the war, no accusation is inaccurate -- even if it contradicts all the accusations that came before. Some say it's all about the Israel lobby. Others claim that Bush was trying to avenge his dad. Still others say Bush went to war because God told him to.

Which is it? All of those? Any? It doesn't seem to matter. It's disturbing how many people are willing to look for motives beyond the ones debated and voted on by our elected leaders.

The last time Greenspan made a gaffe of sorts, his comment about Wall Street's "irrational exuberance" sent worldwide markets into a tizzy. This gaffe is more ironic because it was so plain-spoken, but it also managed to call attention to a case of irrational exuberance -- among Bush-bashing war opponents.