Alan Greenspan Claims Iraq War Was Really For Oil

[WillyT]

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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

Not exactly a newsflash, but I'm glad the WH is shaken!

:mad:

[rusty quoin]

1. We can all thank Greenspan for his honesty, and damn his service under Bush.

[liberaldemocrat7]

2. Amazing how when a Republican says the war got started for oil then people wake up.

However wehen some liberal or progressive says what Greenspan says the fright wingers hair burns on fire.

[gratuitous]

24. Yeah, I'm still waiting for the apology

Back in February 2003, when thousands and thousands of people marched in the streets of Portland, the local paper (the Oregonian) spent quite a bit of money taking aerial photographs of the protests, and hired an expert to pronounce definitively that there weren't as many people marching as the police and the organizers said there were. In addition, one editorial cited a protest sign of "No Blood for Oil" to call the entire exercise "naive."

We were right then, we are right now, and the Oregonian has yet to explain its serious error in editorial judgment, or to apologize for calling citizens "naive" when it turns out we knew better than them what the invasion was all about.

[ljm2002]

27. Yes, gotta love that "naive" thing they throw out...

...reminds me of a conversation with a young man, 30 years my junior, a few years ago. We were discussing privacy issues, and I said that you cannot trust governments, because governments lie -- and our government lies with the best of 'em. And he actually called me "naive". Too funny. I'm guessing that he would not have called me naive had I been of the other gender and 30 years his senior; but it seems to be quite acceptable to assume that us LOLs are all naive. (Okay I'm not officially old enough to qualify as a LOL yet, but still).

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

3. That's a big fat "Duh".

Why is he saying all of this NOW? Perhaps he's dying? Looking for some sort of absolution? Sorry, old man, but you're not gonna get it from me.

[orleans]

4. good. he said it. but like all these fucking repukes that are turning

tail or fessing up lately--fuck them! the damage is done. they sat there and watched. and helped. and promoted it. fuck them all.

(who me? bitter? well, maybe just a little...)

[BeyondGeography]

5. Greenspan paved the way for Bush's outrageous, unnecessary and ruinous tax cuts in 2001

now, with Junior's approval ratings in the toilet and his historical legacy clearly there as well, Greenspan is lip-locking the Clinton Administration.

Glad to see he's a fan of Democratic economic stewardship, and I love that he's adding credence to the war-for-oil argument, but Greenspan is still a two-faced frontrunning asshole.

[indepat]

20. Don't think well enough of Greenspan to label him a two-faced frontrunning asshole for

he was a chief architect of the much higher rate of social security taxes on a much higher wage followed by supporting a multi-trillion dollar raid on the mythical "lock-box," thereby royally-George fucking all babyboomers and those who follow. I'm not up to the task in doing justice for a fitting moniker for Herr Greenspan.

[hang a left]

6. Funny how he wants to distance himself, not unlike many others.

Everyone has a book.

Everyone wants to remove themselves as far as they can.

I say: MAKE A FUCKING LIST AND NEVER FORGET WHO THEY ARE!!!!!!!!

[Eagle_Eye]

19. One more sign the republican party is imploding

One republican is standing on top of another to keep from drowning, but the water just continues to rise.

[Why Syzygy]

7. Yeah, shaken is what they need to be.

I've thought it was the oil angle for a long time. As it wears on other reasons have surfaced as well. Cheney gets boo-koo bucks. He just keeps lying, oblivious to any form of truth, and lining his coffers with big cash. Boy George gets to play big tough guy, the Decider who is "kicking butt". He has to act macho because he possesses no machismo. It has been what they view as a perfect vehicle to haul off our liberties and shreds of the Constitution.
And the ringer. The FEAR. It has proved to be the WMD of choice to fear monger the world and especially American citizens. They are traitors to our Land and People.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Wow... is this Paul on the way to Damascus?

[deacon]

9. k + r

[krispos42]

10. To the greatest with thee!!!

As an aside...

DUH!!!!!

OF COURSE it was for oil! The Bush and Cheney clans are awash in, among other things, OIL MONEY!!!

And, because it was lifelong fuck-up Dubya doing the warring, OF COURSE he fucked up the war for oil! Have you SEEN the gas prices recently? Have you SEEN the price of crude this week?!?!?


Only Dubya could invade an oil-rich nation and actually reduce the worldwide crude output!

It's like invading South Africa for the diamond mines and then having the market price double!

:banghead:

I mean, it's not like oil is crop that is seasonal, and has to be cultivated. I mean, you could argue that if we invaded Cuba for the tobacco, then you could see where for a while the price would be high until the situation stabilized and the farmers recovered and replanted.

But this is oil! It's in the DESERT! The pipelines are IN THE DESERT! Run the pipe down to Basra and pour it into a tanker! Easy!

And they can't even do that...

[Pachamama]

11. No Sh*t Sherlock!!! Add that one to Greenspan's recent statement that he couldn't have predicted

the effect of the subprime mortgages on the economy.... Really Al? You couldn't have predicted that or that the War on Iraq was about Oil?

And they called him a genius and the Maestro.... :eyes:

[Swamp Rat]

17. Oi Pachamama!

:hi: :hug:

[Mind_your_head]

12. Greenspan speaks/has an astute sense of the obvious......

:eyes:

I expect to see his book being snapped up at the Dollar Store as early as next week.

What a lame, pitiless JERK.

Hope he enjoys his ride across the River Styx....

[Spinzonner]

13. Get in line with Powell, Greenspan

You're both too little, too late.

[gateley]

14. EVERYTHING is about oil. K&R nt

[spindoctor]

15. It's nice to see so many come clean on WH policies...

...but where were they in 2004?

Now that GWB's ratings are in the sewer, the rats are leaving the sinking ship and distancing themselves with accusations that really should be read as confessions. Everyone who knew about the deceit to the nation and did not speak up while Bush was still rolling sevens is guilty by association.

Speak now and be absolved? I don't think so.

[Twist_U_Up]

16. 911 the "New Pearl Harbor". It all ties together

Wake up folks

www.patriotsquestion911.com

[bridgit]

18. well that via: The (antique) Principles of Conflict Derived from Malthus...

The Principles of Conflict Derived from Malthus

Malthus opened the door to illuminating the connection between environmental scarcity and political conflict when he enumerated the "positive checks" of war, disease and poverty which would limit the unconstrained growth of population. A major aim of the International Society of Malthus is to follow Malthus' s lead by exploring the basis of conflict and politics in history and in present times.

For example, on the basis of Malthus's teachings, we can derive the principles of politics and conflict:

The Principles of Conflict

The First Principle of War:

All wars are struggles over the control of resources or struggles for political control. Politics is the struggle for power in order to control resources. So all political struggle is at bottom the struggle over resources.

Subsidiary principle:
When resources are scarce or perceived to be scarce, there will be an increased struggle over the available resources.

Subsidiary principle:
Wars which are not directly or overtly about the control of resources, are struggles for political control.

Corollary:
Resource scarcity is a consequence of too many people chasing limited supplies.

Corollary:
When population reaches a critical mass relative to available resources, there is always a struggle over the division of those resources. When there is an easily identifiable minority ethnic or racial group, that group tends to become a target in times of scarcity.'

http://desip.igc.org/malthus/conflict.html

http://desip.igc.org/malthus Robert Malthus, a man after Ebenezer Scrooge's heart (what there is of it)

[Bullwinkle925]

21. OMG . . .

REALLY??


:sarcasm: :puke:

[WillyT]

22. LOL !!!

Yep...I was shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!!

:banghead:

[SoCalDem]

23. Greenspan calls himself a "libertarian republican" .. he was in charge for 18 years

Kind of explains our monetary "difficulties", doesn't it?

I also love how people like him wait until they are out of office, to 'fess up and tell us all (for the price of a book) how badly they screwed up for all those years we trusted them to watch out for our interests..

What a bunch of suckers we all are :puke:

[kenny blankenship]

25. The article characterizes Greenspan's view as seeing Hussein *as a threat to the ME oil*

we weren't receiving oil from Iraq so Iraq's own supplies weren't any threat to us. That leaves the idea of Hussein as a serial oil aggressor, going after the oil of neighboring countries: Iran, Kuwait and potentially the Big One in Saudi. That view is not at all the same as saying, as many here do, that we invaded Iraq to get their oil for US companies and/or to enshadow the oil supplies of the entire region ourselves. If you see Saddam Hussein as a military adventurer who has attacked other countries for oil in the past and will do it again if allowed to control his country's future, then you could claim he was a threat that had to be taken down. That could be Greenspan's position, and I wouldn't put it past him in any way.

So it would be nice to see some more detailed quotations before we go welcoming him into the "Blood For Oil " camp of BFEE Iraq Invasion Theory.

[WillyT]

26. Oh Please... Hussein's Regime Was Disemboweled In The First Gulf War !!!

His WMD were dismantled\destroyed, and we were flying over the north and south of Iraq daily.

Exactly how was he to embark on his military adventure of serial oil aggression???

:shrug:

[kenny blankenship]

28. Ask Greenie, that seems to be his idea

not mine.