Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

[RamboLiberal]

Source: TimesOnline

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.



Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

[truthisfreedom]

1. They'll just deny it, and try to marginalize him like they've done with every single other person

with any intelligence that has been used as a tool by this administration for their own personal gain.

[Alcibiades]

10. but would such an attempt be credible?

By which I mean that the Republicans loudly celebrated greenspan for over 20 years, even during Clinton, as a financial genius. It's a little like something I thought of during the Larry Craig fiasco: you cannot take a horse, break him, brand him, ride him for 20 years, and then, the moment he does doing something you don't like (such as bucking you off, soliciting anonymous sex in mens' rooms or denouncing policies that are already obviously bad to everyone who isn't some sort of frickin' retard) claim "that's not my horse."

[NewJeffCT]

18. It's not credible to 70% of the US

but, they would be doing it to play to their base and keep them in line.

[harun]

77. Exactly, appeasing the twenty five percenters (n/t)

[tocqueville]

28. gay horses in men's bathrooms ?

what a world we are living in....

[colorado_ufo]

47. Too funny!

[Jackpine Radical]

48. ...and Shrub trying to milk them...

[blm]

37. And Bill Clinton is on record saying Bush did NOT go in for oil.

During his June 2004 book tour:


http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs


(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.
>>>>>>

[Sarah Ibarruri]

39. I no longer support Bill Clinton. I don't understand this man. Is he insane.....

or did he always agree with right wingnuts?

[Maribelle]

43. At the time Clinton thought Bush believed there were WMDs in Iraq.

Now Clinton knows Bush was lying.

[blm]

45. Really? You think Tony Blair never shared the Downing Street Memos with Bill

before the war? You think Bill WASN'T advising Tony Blair at that time?

You believed Bill when he told David Letterman he never heard of the Downing Street Memos in July 2005?

I haven't seen any headlines Bill made that claim he knows now Bush lied about WMDs. Can you share what you have seen?

[Maribelle]

54. There was one memo not memos. And why would Blair even want to share it?

Of course Blair never shared the Downing Street Memo with Bill before the war, because Blair wanted the memo simply dismissed.

I think when Clinton responded to Letterman's question about the Downing Street Memo he was only kidding. It was first published in May of 2005, and by July who on earth hadn't heard of it?


When Clinton left office in January of 2000 there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons, however, none ever of the mushroom cloud variety. When Bush and the rest of his corrupt administration claimed Saddam was attempting to purchase yellow-cake from Niger, presented pictures of the aluminum tubes, then repeated the 45-minutes-to-launch crap from Blair, this was all totally out of Clinton's range of intelligence information. So by adding in the nuclear options, the corrupt Bush Administration was attempting to nullify any qualifying comments from the prior administration. That clever Bush.

Of course, in time the members of the prior Clinton Administration began to get the truth regarding Saddam's nuclear capabilities, and that Bush had made it all up. Sadly, after Bush's illegal war had done its part in destroying Iraq. Today, I don't think the Clintons know any more or any less than the general public regarding the nuclear part.

Being kind to an ideological foe, Clinton noted that Wolfowitz had developed a whole theory about how a US invasion of Iraq would lead to a democratic Iraq and that the existence of this new Iraq would remake the region. Clinton indicated he never accepted this point of view, but it was, he said, a theory worth debating. Referring to the Bush administration's rationale for war, he remarked, "They should have just said that, without the pretext ." It was a polite way of saying the Bushies had been untruthful. After all, who is Clinton to call another president a liar?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=1531

[blm]

55. HAHAH...you have GOT to be kidding. Letterman asked Bill about it SERIOUSLY

and Clinton claimed he never heard of it.

And the idea that Blair and Clinton didn't discuss Iraq in 2002-3 is absurd.

Clinton even advised Democrats in congress to call themselves Blair Democrats if they didn't want to be identified with Bush on this war - that was advice from someone trying to help SELL the strategy not scrutinize it.

And what Clintons have to say now that she is facing a PRIMARY race is expected to be the same line of BS that we got from Lieberman before his race - oh yeah - he REALLY wanted a withdrawal and REALLY opposed Bush on key points. Yeah....really.

[Maribelle]

57. Letterman was serious. So?

Many famous people have been on the receiving end of Clinton's wit. Why would Clinton even want to talk about the DSM on national television?

Do you have any proof that Clinton advised democrats in congress to call themselves "Blair Democrats"? Wasn't that term exclusively used to distinguish the Brits from "social democrats"? It would truly have no meaning in our congress.

You can take whatever the Clinton's have to say however you want, that's your choice.

[blm]

63. Clinton chose to be 'witty' about 'fixed intel' memo? That's fooling yourself.

Creat a mirage to protect your FAITH that Bill wouldn't be part of selling Iraq. Edwards has even said that Bill advised him on Iraq and Edwards helped to draft the IWR.

Your faith is really cute but use it to sell Bill's 'wit' over 'fixed intel' to those not paying attention.

[Maribelle]

68. You asked the question "Did I believe Bill when he said ..." . Who's fooling whom???

I did not create a mirage. Perhaps your mind could be going all foggy on you.

What I did say clearly implied I believe he knew and he was passing off on talking about it. by July who on earth hadn't heard of it? If you do not want to characterize that response as wit then characterize it as a lie, if you wish. If in your limited vocabulary kidding and using wit can only mean rolling laughter, I really don't care.

wit
1. ingenious humor: the apt, clever, and often humorous association of words or ideas, or a capacity for it
2. speech or writing showing wit: speech or writing that shows an apt, clever, and often humorous association of words
3. witty person: somebody known for using wit
4. intelligence: mental acumen, intelligence, or reasoning power

kid
1. lie to somebody for fun: to tell somebody something that is not true, especially as a joke or tease
2. deceive somebody: to deceive or mislead another person or yourself

You did not respond to my question about why Blair would want to share the DSM with Bill. And you did not respond to my question about Blair Democrats.

I didn't say a thing about Bill not being part of selling Iraq. But for the record, Edwards NEVER said that Bill advised him on Iraq. He said that folks that worked under Bill did.

[provis99]

70. Bull. Ex-presidents have access to the exact same intelligence

as the President. Clinton knew Bush's justification was fraudulent; he came out and supported Bush anyways. Bill Clinton has always reminded me of a slick used car salesman. You get soothed by what he says, but then realize the asshole sold you a lemon.

[Maribelle]

75. Then you think the intelligence was not fixed?

Which is it - - fixed or not fixed? Exactly what "intelligence" are you classifying as "the exact same"? Your totally subjective post lacks facts.


I really do not care what you think of Clinton, he did not know about things like "the forged yellow cake documents" prior to the start up of Bush's fiasco, no matter how fast and furiously you try to spin it,

In fact, I've often thought that Bush didn't even know. I truly believe Cheney was behind many fraudulent things pulling on Bush's puppet strings. I do not think Bush is the brightest light in the frat house.

[tibbiit]

56. so what

2004 that may as well have been in the last century.
tib

[blm]

61. Sure - but, care to share with us WHEN this influential voice decided to STOP

supporting Bush's strategy in Iraq? When he publicly made headlines to oppose Bush on Iraq? Was it anytime before his wife's primary candidacy?

[lame54]

19. of course it's about oil

watch this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F48xNhqzQiA

[LiberalFighter]

29. Who has respect in the world? Bush or Greenspan?

Hah what a dumb question. NOT

And I bet there will be much more difficulties in Iraq.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

2. No!

Ya think? :eyes:

[amandabeech]

3. The war was about the U.S. and the rest of the west getting control of Iraqi oil.

Saddam liked money. He would pump oil for money. He just wouldn't pump oil at our command and deliver it to us. In fact, no one does that anymore, and that's why Cheney and the oil majors wanted Saddam out and them in.

He wasn't going to go into Kuwait again, and he didn't have any navy to speak of to close the Straits of Hormuz, unlike the Iranians. He was just the easiest to knock off, and folks with other agendas wanted him gone, too.

Notice, though, that the Shrubites haven't been able to push their precious oil laws through the Iraqi congress, such as it is, and probably won't ever be able to. The current crop of Iraqis won't let that oil go any more than Saddam would.

[AlCzervik]

4. WTF why did he wait for his book advance to start talking?

and how will his wife be able to cover any stories?

[complain jane]

41. Probably waited until his book was published so that

he knew it would be out there before he meets up with some accidental death in a plane crash or staged suicide or something.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Huh. Imagine that.

[hedgetrimmer]

6. If I was 81 and writing my memoirs I would let loose on all the scuttle butt.

If I was Rupert Murdoch I would do anything I could to discredit Greenspan and flush his 81 year old ass down the toilet.

If I was George Bush I would not know what a memoir was.

[jazzjunkysue]

23. Lol! n/t.

[blm]

53. Wait and see if Greenspan dares to mention BCCI. THAT will test his integrity.

BCCI was glaringly absent from Bill Clinton's book.

[hedgetrimmer]

62. BCCI info for those interested

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Credit_and_Commerce_International

~snip~
The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a major international bank founded in Pakistan in 1972. At its peak, it operated in 78 countries, had over 400 branches, and claimed assets of $25 billion.

BCCI became the focus in 1991 of the world's worst financial scandal and what was called a "$20-billion-plus heist" (Beaty & Gwynne 1993). It was found by regulators in the United States and the United Kingdom to be involved in money laundering, bribery, support of terrorism,<1> arms trafficking, the sale of nuclear technologies, the commission and facilitation of tax evasion, smuggling, illegal immigration, and the illicit purchases of banks and real estate. The bank was found to have at least $13 billion unaccounted for.

Investigators in the U.S. and the UK revealed that BCCI had been "set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs are extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection";<2> BCCI organized its own intelligence network, diplomatic corps, and shipping & trading companies.

The liquidators, Deloitte & Touche, filed a lawsuit against Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young, the bank's auditors, which was settled for $175 million in 1998. A further lawsuit against the emir of Abu Dhabi, a major shareholder, was launched in 1999 for around $400 million. BCCI creditors also instituted a $1 billion suit against the Bank of England as a regulatory body. After a nine-year struggle due to the Bank's statutory immunity, the case went to trial in January 2004. However in November 2005 liquidators Deloitte dropped any action against the Bank of England as it was no longer considered in the best interests of the creditors after a High Court ruling.

[NuttyFluffers]

74. and since memoir is derived from French, change it to "Freedom Memories"

:7

[iaviate1]

7. With all of these people turning on him...

We may just see impeachment. But of course, that would require the Democratic leadership to actually care about what's right.

[JMDEM]

8. No way... Really? Well I'll be...

Never would have thunk it. Golly gee wizz. jiminy Christmas...

[Alcibiades]

9. It was about oil--keeping it off the market

It still is. The lowering of Iraqi production, as well as the "instability premium," have suddenly made any oil, anywhere inthe world, much more valuable, which has made Exxon-Mobil and the rest much more profitable. If Bush has his way, our troops will be in Iraq, and therefore Iraq will be in insurgency, forever.

[kysrsoze]

76. Bingo. I read his bit about Hussein potentially controlling the strait of Hormuz

WTF does this guy know about that? Husseing had control of his own country, but little else, and what sane person thought things were going to be more stable once we destroyed the country's entire infrastructure?

[harun]

78. He had control of Baghdad, the rest, not so much

I don't think the strategy was stability at all. They just don't care. With it unstable they have the excuse that they have to stay there to keep things stable. Can't sell a solution if there isn't a problem. Albeit they don't like having to spend as much money as they are to occupy the country but the strategy now has been changed so many times I don't think they know up from down.

[Neshanic]

11. "But AAAAndrea, we will be invited to the Hamptons next summer. really!"

[Cleita]

12. Oh duh! It took him this long to figure it out?

Too bad that influential people like him, didn't speak up back when it would have made a difference.

:thumbsdown:

[deacon]

13. We need more recommendations for this. k +r

[xchrom]

14. he would know. n/t

[Rageneau]

15. Now, watch the Freepers tear Greenspan apart with their teeth.

Wingnuts can't admit error, so the ones who have supported Bush so far will continue to. And, to a wingnut, supporting a guy means mercilessly attacking the character of all who criticize him.

Poor Alan. He was once a hero to wingnuts, back when they were giving him credit for what Clinton did.

Now, he's just another Newt, Larry, Ted, Tom, Colin, etc., etc., who has fallen into disfavor.

[complain jane]

42. What do you think the wingnut meme will be on this?

He's got Alzheimer's?

[goodgd_yall]

65. Yeah, that's what I was thinking n/t

[FooFootheSnoo]

60. They already are

This morning on Fox news they were talking about this story. One of the hosts (I don't know her name because I hardly ever turn Fox News on) said "well, how does he know that? He's not a military guy. He didn't go to all the military meetings." Another host said "well, he does travel in elite Washington DC circles, but where is his proof? Does he have any kind of documentation?".

[goodgd_yall]

64. Self-serving ID-EE-OTS

I'm sorry to say I have Faux News on in the background every day (I'm caregiver to my mother and it's her favorite news source. But I see it as a benefit in that I get to hear what the right wing mind (such as it is) works.

[DUlover2909]

16. When has any war not been for money?

I bet any war you can think of has somehow, in some way, been motivated by the leaders to protect economic interests. Even defensive wars. Even the Cold War. Even the American Revolution. Money makes the world go round. Wars are a way for governments to make sure the right people continue to get paid and the wealth stays where they want it to stay. The Russian Revolution is a perfect example of trying to reverse the economics of emperialist capitalism. Any time I see a war start I look to see where the money is involved. I don't have access to all the information so I never get a clear picture, but my gut feeling always turns out to be right.

[Maribelle]

22. Good Bush talking point "to protect economic interests". Iraq was about greed not protection.

Bush has proven over and over again his administration couldn't care less about the economic interests of our country. And what Bush Sock Puppets fail to realize that most in this country recognize that Kosovo was not so much driven by our economic interests, but rather driven by the horrific mess Big Daddy Bush left.

[lligrd]

17. Hey, There's A Surprise Huh?

I am going to be so pissed if one of them eventually becomes a hero for just admitting it. And how the hell many of them have to admit any of this chit before Americans finally do something about it?

[ohio2007]

20. In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow

hmmm...
pimping his book to boost sales?
He knows how to work the system

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. Greenspan's words are a smokescreen

And palpably false.

I'd suggest that anyone interested pick up the Israel Lobby
this indictment on the Neocons, Cheney, and others makes an incredibly convincing case as to the whys, wherefores, and hows of this quagmire.

And greenspan has been a honorary member of that lobby for decades. Now that we all realize how insane Iraq has become, you will see AIPAC, Israel, and the neocons backing away, wrongly claiming that other reasons, and not their concerted cheerleading, was the cause of our invasion.

[Maribelle]

25. No. Bush was driven by oil, lured into this mess with this neocon carrot.

Neocon interests are beyond failure. Oil interests are merely beginning to show great progress.

There is no way neocons could have convinced their frat boy to go into Iraq to protect Israel, not that the Israel Lobby did not hope to reap great rewards from the war for oil.

[KaptBunnyPants]

73. The neo-cons are the smokescreen, as is Israel.

American business elites are using Israel, not the other way around. They installed puppets as governors of Mid-East countries which allow them to control the flow of oil, leaving Israel to absorb the hatred caused by our puppet governments in the region. Meanwhile, who better to use for PR purposes at home than Israel, a country composed of people who suffered a high profile holocaust merely 60 years ago? They even invented a new brand of Christianity which dictates support for Israel as a Godly mission in order to get the support of racists who never liked Jews and weren't moved by their recent slaughter. 60 years ago Christian Zionism barely existed, now it's the dominant brand of right wing Christianity. That wasn't done without someone's financial backing, and John Hagee hangs out with the same oil power brokers as every other right wing leader.

It's a win-win situation for elites from all the countries involved. Our elites get the precious, economy sustaining oil and the power that goes with being able to control access to it. Mid-East elites get to grow fat off of American bribes and blame all of their country's problems on Israel. And Israeli elites get the military backing of the US, which is the only thing that allows Israel to survive. The rich oil men who control our government don't give a damn about Jewish people; they wouldn't do this for Israel. Like every other war, this was always about money and power. There's no financial interest in helping Israel, but there is a definite financial interest in the crude found under the sands of many of Israel's neighbors.

[LeftishBrit]

24. Duh

Next thing he'll be saying that water is wet.

[spanone]

26. not one of these fuckers will speak up when their voices carry weight

bu$h* must have a dossier on every single one of them

[Sarah Ibarruri]

40. Or maybe they're making good money from somewhere to keep quiet. nt

[1932]

27. I think he's pissed that Bush Admin and Time Warner are trying to blame him for credit crunch so he

is going to start telling the truth.

[LiberalFighter]

30. Then they just started writing the book within the past month.

Boy, Greenspan is a fast writer. And the publisher is a fast printer.

[1932]

32. I didn't realize it was a quote in the book. Thought it was part of publicity for book. So reverse

that.

Alll the recent articles about Greenspan's low interest rates being the primary reason for credit crunch are Cheney-vs-Joe-Wilson style attacks on Greenspan because they knew what he was going to say in his book.

[truth2power]

31. And water is wet..

I'm surprised that anyone with an IQ above a carrot wouldn't know this already. Geez! :eyes:

[FarCenter]

33. But the Anglo-American oil interests screwed up big-time

By allying themselves with the Neo-cons, they allowed their relationships with oil producing countries to slip out of their control. After several years of modest production increases they won't be able to get it back.

Production in the biggest fields has peaked. But demand and prices continue to rise.

It is clear now, that the optimum course of action for every oil producing country is to leave the oil in the ground until the prices rise, rather than pump it now and sell it for dollars that can only be invested for low returns.

[chelsea0011]

34. So the media will only have opposing faceoffs when discussing the book

and it will all be called a standoff. Ho-hum. Bush is the worst President ever and the media has enabled him for years.

[durrrty libby]

35. Greenspan Rips Bush Praises Clinton

That's the headline in a local Sunday paper


" WASHINGTON | Alan Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve Chairman for 18 years and was the leading Republican economist for the past three decades, levels unusually harsh criticism at President Bush and the Republican Party in his new book, arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint.




J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


While condemning Democrats, too, for rampant federal spending, he offers Bill Clinton an exemption. The former president emerges as the political hero of "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan's 531-page memoir, which is being published Monday.

Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage."

But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. ... To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."


http://www.theledger.com/article/20070916/NEWS/709160471/1039

[Doc Martin]

36. Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) was an early quickly dropped name

[Fearless]

38. Umm...yeah...

Now if he had said this while still working at the Fed then I would have been impressed.

[Raejeanowl]

44. A LIttle Late, Alan

Wonder how they're going to discredit him. Maybe they'll play the "doddering old fool" card. Glad he finally saw the light or had the cojones to publish this.

[IDemo]

46. Odd then that he completely ignores oil depletion in projecting 'The World in 2030'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20789997/site/newsweek/

Realizing that this is just an excerpt, but his biggest concern seems to be that "inflation might arise as a consequence of the inadequate funding for health and retirement benefits for baby boomers."

However, "In the end, I see a positive fiscal outcome."

[tabasco]

49. It's just a coinky-dink that US oil companies have made WORLD RECORD profits the last few years!

REALLY!

Just an amazing coincidence. What a crazy world!

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. Fuck you, you asshole!

In 2000 Greenspan refused to lower interest rates despite signs of a cooling economy because he was concerned that it would be seen as a political act intended to bolster political support for the administration.

Of course, the converse is also true. Failing to act reasonably to support the cooling economy was also a political act.

You picked wrong, fucker.

[Kolesar]

69. That is how I recall it...eom

[mitchum]

51. Once again, Greenspan is lying...the true purpose of the Iraq war was to shift public $$$...

to defense contractors and other criminal cronies

[goforit]

52. Greenspan .....accomplice to the crime (raiding the treasury & the war)

No tears for Alan.

[Gregorian]

58. No way! We're still looking for those WMD's! Aren't we?

No, I forgot. We're there for Bin Laden. No, We're there for Saddamn. No, we're there for democracy. Or freedom fries.

So that's one million dead people.

[Justitia]

59. Thank you, Captain Obvious. -eom

[rodeodance]

66. some days are just a chuckle

[Dervill Crow]

67. Viggo Mortensen said the same thing in December 2002.

Where was Greenspan back then?

Better late than never, I guess, and probably Alan Greenspan wouldn't look quite as hot in the "No blood for oil" t-shirt that Viggo wore on the Charlie Rose show. But still, why didn't all these people that now say the war was a mistake and was based on lies speak up sooner?

[Lucinda]

71. I love Viggo....

And now I've forgotten whatever smart pithy comment I was going to reply to the OP with. :think:

[Dervill Crow]

79. Did you happen to see Colbert last night?

:rofl:

[killbotfactory]

72. Republicans will change their tune shortly

They will go from "It's not about oil, how DARE you!" to "Of course it was about the oil, we're not THAT niave!"