Greenspan clarifies Iraq war, oil link

Reuters via Yahoo! ^ | September 17, 2007 | JoAnne Allen

[Brilliant]

I thought from the beginning that like Paul O'Neill's book, this Greenspan book was another one where the person who supposedly wrote the memoires did not really write them, and probably did not even read them, much less edit them. The fact that Greenspan is now trying to distance himself from his own book supports that, I think.

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.

[Brilliant]

“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.

[jveritas]

So it was Greenspan who suggested to President Bush that the oil should be an important factor in the war to remove Saddam Hussein. WOW, this is 180 degree different from the story we heard yesterday, this is not a clarification it is a complete reversal of the story and the role of individuals about who really made the oil as an important factor in the war, it was Greenspan himself.

[counterpunch]

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.

[BOBTHENAILER]

"I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential,"

So now we have Greenspan the warmongering policy adviser?

[JimRed]

Stability in the Gulf States = free flow of oil at market prices.

But that is just one of the reasons we are there.

[Puppage]

If the war was for oil, why didn’t we just invade Mexico & save on airfare?

[stratboy]

Back and Fill Ping !!!!

[Brilliant]

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.

[Grimmy]

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.

[BARLF]

Andrea Mitchell and Alan Greenspan......

Andrea didn't say what she said about Plame

Alan Greenspan didn't say what he said about war for oil.

[Thermalseeker]

Like the rest of the liberal media, you can't believe anything they say.

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.

[Thermalseeker]

If the war was for oil, why didn’t we just invade Mexico & save on airfare?

Canada, too. Heck, I know a Girl Scout troop that could take over Canada.....

[ryan71]

A delusional old man lying to sell books.

[iopscusa]

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.

[eddie willers]

So far we mainly have a thread of people who didn’t read the article.

You being a glaring exception.

[Grimmy]

The only time these guys are ever wrong is whenever someone hears them.

[Leatherneck_MT]

“If the war was for oil, why didn’t we just invade Mexico & save on airfare?”

Because they are Bush’s kinfolk

[Tribune7]

The more I read about what Greenspan actually said, the more I think it is being overblown as criticism of Dubya.

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.

[azhenfud]

Keep your ears open - there’s something underlying Greenspan’s choice to wobble, probably as with O’Neill, I’m thinking there’s possibly been a “he’s used unauthorized sensitive material and may be subject to government inquiry” threat and now he backpedals with exuberance.