Greenspan Shocker: "Iraq war really for oil"

by gmony714 | September 15, 2007 at 06:48 pm
720 views | 7 Recommendations | 16 comments

Photos

Greenspan Shocker: "Iraq war really for oil"

Greenspan Shocker: "Iraq war really for oil"

see larger image

uploaded by gmony714

 UPDATE: Gates rejects Greenspan claim war is about oil[q
url="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1618999120070916?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true"]U.S.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday rejected former Federal
Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's statement that the Iraq war "is
largely about oil."

With Democratic lawmakers apparently short of the votes needed to
force President George W. Bush to change course, Gates defended the
war, now in its fifth year, and said it's being driven by the need to
stabilize the Gulf and put down hostile forces.

Gates's defense came a day after thousands of anti-war protesters
marched in Washington. A spokeswoman for one of the groups who
organized the march said more than 200 protesters were taken into
custody, including at least 10 Iraq war veterans, when they attempted
to cross a police barrier near the U.S. Capitol.

Greenspan, in his new book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a
New World," echoed long-held complaints of many critics that a key
motivating force in the war is to maintain U.S. access to the rich oil
supplies in Iraq.

"Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of
mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned
about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the
functioning of the world economy," Greenspan wrote.

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge
what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil," added
Greenspan, who for decades had been one of the most respected U.S.
voices on fiscal policies.

After more than 18 years at the helm, Greenspan retired in January
2006 as chairman of the Fed, the nation's central bank, which regulates
monetary policy.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Gates said, "I have a lot of respect
for Mr. Greenspan." But he disagreed with his comment about oil being a
leading motivating factor in the war.

"I wasn't here for the decision-making process that initiated it,
that started the war," Gates said. But he added, "I know the same
allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't
believe it's true."

"I think that it's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about
rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's about
aggressive dictators," Gates said.

"After all, Saddam Hussein launched wars against several of his
neighbors," Gates said. "He was trying to develop weapons of mass
destruction, certainly when we went in, in 1991."

Bush last week ordered gradual troop reductions in Iraq into next
summer but defied calls for a dramatic change of course, saying the
U.S. military role there will stretch beyond his presidency.

Gates said he would urge Bush to veto a proposal by Democratic Sen.
James Webb of Virginia that would require U.S. troops spend as much
time at home as their previous tour in Iraq.

"It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that," Gates said.
"It really is a backdoor way to try and force the president to
accelerate the drawdowns. Again, the drawdowns have to be based on the
conditions on the ground."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan
Democrat, said he did not know if the Senate, held by Democrats, 51-49,
would be able to muster the 60 votes needed to clear a Republican
procedural roadblock and approve the Webb measure. But he said "it has
a good chance."


 [/q]

 

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.

recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
CitizenX

Oops, there it is.

gryphon
gryphon
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 22:02 on September 15th, 2007

gmony714, Good stuff.


i think this is a very serious blow to Bush.  I'll be ineterested to read the details.

Tom van B
Tom van B
flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 00:48 on September 16th, 2007

gmony714, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”.  Good stuff.

0
CitizenX

May I ask what you mean by politically inconvenient?

I interpret it to mean that we are justified to invade Iraq to gain control of their resources but we shouldn't talk about it.

0
joellerose

Of course protecting the oil supplies was one of the many reasons for getting rid of Saddam.  Every knowledgable person in the world knew of his ambitions.  What else is new?

0
CitizenX

I'd like you to define "protecting" energy supplies.

0
gmony714

very true joellerose. The "you see I told you so" crowd are talking to themselves. The same thing was said about the first Gulf War. All National Security moves in the Middle East concern oil. Interesting how Greenspan says the two most corrupt Presidents ever were the smartest. Nixon and Clinton

0
CitizenX

Pure spin gmony and joellerose. Any talk about oil in the first gulf war was about Saddam thinking his oil was being stolen by Kuwait so that lie falls by the wayside. Of course there are national security concerns concerning energy, hence the secret energy meetings with Iraqi oil as the prime subject, hence the current war in Iraq to gain control over that same oil. Our need for oil to fuel our plans of imperialism does not justify the lies and deceit used to start this war to gain control of Iraqi oil.

Protecting oil supplies does not include invading and occupying a country.

0
SthPacific

I always find it amusing to see those two stooges backpeddling like
crazy, Just the other day they were attacking someone for saying this
and telling everyone that it was to bring Democracy and freedom to
Iraq.

Of Course the most corupt politician ever possibly in
History was Ronald Reagan, But I think that Thatcher was pulling his
strings anyway. He just wasn't bright enough to be in control of anything. I'll never forget what he said about Osama Bin-Laden 
"Those Guys Have the Moral Fortitude of Our Founding Fathers" and you
could almost hear in the background Oliver North working that shreader
to death. 

They almost got rid of the paper work for the Gipper's nun killer Roberto D'Aubuisson.  But not quite.

0
gmony714

Thank you for the comments but the refrence to those you disagree with as stooges is again proof that you are

not interested in facts or dialogue you are interseted in insulting other members. I ask you pacific to not comment on my posts since you only bait other members with Flaming comments. Thank you. Citizen X  I disagree with you but thanks for your comment.

0
SthPacific

Greenspan and Bernake said to Reuters 3 weeks ago that it was not about Oil but about securing commodity preferences http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/greenspan-gives-bernanke-vote-of/20070913123109990001

Why not just have Hitler interveiw Goebbels ? I mean LMAO

I will cease commenting on your posts when you cease updating them every 45 mins to bump up your rank. Exploiting that feature is rather rude gmony714.

As for you Cuban story Why did you delete it.?  


0
CitizenX

Thank you for being civil about my comment.

I do think the proof is in the energy policy meetings that cheney had. In my mind the secrecy about them is only confirmation.

0
gmony714

Thanx CitizenX you have a valid point.

0
Michelle Says So

Finally someone of importance tells it like it is.  Hopefully it won't be like Dave Chappelle's skit, "When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong".  I am glad he spoke out because I agree with his thought process 100%...two different generations can't be wrong.  ;)

0
joellerose

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2007; A03 (Excerpt)

 


Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.


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



This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from