Back and Fill Ping !!!!
Posted on 09/17/2007 5:00:26 AM PDT by Brilliant
Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was "essential" to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.
Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that "the Iraq War is largely about oil," said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.
"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
In his new book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan wrote: "I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil."
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday rejected the comment, which echoed long-held complaints of many critics that a key motivating force in the war was to maintain U.S. access to the rich oil supplies in Iraq.
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 know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true," Gates said.
"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.
Greenspan retired in January 2006 after more than 18 years as chairman of the Fed, the U.S. central bank, which regulates monetary policy.
He has been conducting a round of interviews coinciding with the release of his book, which goes on sale on Monday.
In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something."
But Greenspan's main support for Saddam's ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.
"My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through," Greenspan said.
Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean "chaos" to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.
Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.
DISMAY WITH DEMOCRATS
Greenspan, who in his memoir criticized Bush and congressional Republicans for abandoning fiscal discipline and putting politics ahead of sound economics, also expressed dismay with the Democratic Party in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on Monday.
Greenspan told the Journal he was "fairly close" to former President Bill Clinton's economic advisers, but added, "The next administration may have the Clinton administration name, but the Democratic Party ... has moved ... very significantly in the wrong direction." He cited its populist bent, especially its skepticism of free trade. Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is the Democratic presidential front-runner.
Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the Journal he was not sure how he would vote in the 2008 election.
"I just may not vote," he was quoted as saying, adding, "I'm saddened by the whole political process."
You've got to remember that the publishing world is part of the liberal media. Like the rest of the liberal media, you can't believe anything they say.
“Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the Journal he was not sure how he would vote in the 2008 election.”
Heh, heh. Sounds like he may find a soul mate in Ron Paul. Ironic, considering that Ron Paul wants to abolish the Fed.
The one time Greenspan actually says something straight forward, and he has to come back to clarify it later.
Now we know why he always spoke so cryptically — he bungles it when he doesn’t.
So now we have Greenspan the warmongering policy adviser?
Stability in the Gulf States = free flow of oil at market prices.
But that is just one of the reasons we are there.
If the war was for oil, why didn’t we just invade Mexico & save on airfare?
Back and Fill Ping !!!!
It makes no sense. If we invaded Iraq for oil, then why haven’t we taken it now that we’re there?
And if we were only concerned about taking Iraq’s oil, we did not need to invade in order to get it. All we had to do is remove the sanctions.
We didn’t even need to remove sanctions. All we’d have needed to do was let our companies squeeze their tankers in among the eurotards that were “food for oil”ing themselves into deals at below market value for the oil.
Andrea didn't say what she said about Plame
Alan Greenspan didn't say what he said about war for oil.
Yeah, but in this incidence I think he's spot on. The war in Iraq, versions I and II, were both about oil, or the free flow thereof, among other things. I don't think we should deny that. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. We're not stealing it, we're buying it and using the energy to create things that benefit all of mankind.
Canada, too. Heck, I know a Girl Scout troop that could take over Canada.....
Maybe Greenspan is on to something about OIL....not that if we loss control of the ME oil to our avowed enemies it would be a bad thing.
If AG wasn’t such an little egomanic, maybe the Elf of the Fed Reserve could have helped by explaining a bit more about the strategy for over throwing Sadam as based on a serious national threat especially after 9/11/07.
So far we mainly have a thread of people who didn’t read the article.
You being a glaring exception.
The only time these guys are ever wrong is whenever someone hears them.
“If the war was for oil, why didn’t we just invade Mexico & save on airfare?”
Because they are Bush’s kinfolk
It turns out that Greenspan supported the Iraq invasion, for instance.
As far as what he says about Dubya's and especially the GOP congress w/regard to gubmint spending it is what most Freepers have been saying for years.
It's actually kind of funny to see the left using Greenspan to hammer Bush for being too liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.