We all know it. It wasn’t about WMDs. It wasn’t about 9/11. It wasn’t about stopping terrorists or bringing democracy to peoples hungering for freedom or ‘finishing the job’ Bush Sr. started in the way most meant it. All that was lying and rhetoric to hide the truth. It was about what the Bush family and financial friends understand most — oil, and how Saddam wasn’t playing by America’s rules anymore.
Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
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.
As an aside, here are some pre-war quotes by now ‘stay the course’ Republicans about going to war with Iraq.
Greenspan, hardly a liberal and not exactly a fan of Clinton while he was in office, now considers Clinton a “political hero” compared to what Bush & Co. have done to the economy since, turning Washington into a place where “[g]overnance has become dangerously dysfunctional.”
He is either lying or like many hasn’t a clue.
In the 2000 election Gore and Bush both stated the real threat to the US was North Korea and Iran. Due to them developing nuclear weapons.
So what did we do? We cozied up with China, kept the pressure in Japan and South Korea and thereby cut off NK.
Around Iran we kept up alliances with India, Made friends with a coup leader in Pakistan, kept up with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia even though both of these nations our founding father would have been outraged by, made allies with old Soviet bordering nations, invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
In both fronts we have done a classic military play. Surround your enemy.
That we get oil and natural gas cheaper is a bonus, not the main reason. It is all to surround Iran and North Korea. We are hedging them in.
Simple simple simple.
Cursor_
14
you are so right, MOSt of the oil does NOT come from canada, but Saudi Arabia. Canada has the largest synthetic oil production, but if middle eastern oil was shut down, very quickly every American’s lives would be changed dramatically
Which one of you smart guys can enlighten us on how smart the Brazilians are about fuel?
For anyone surprised by this revelation that oil is at the root of this conflict, I have another piece of breaking news for you….. Scientists have discovered that water seems to be infused with a pervasive quality of “wetness.”
Ok, so I’ve read all the comments here and guess what ? Each and everyone is Right !! Question remains..what’s it all add up to in the end ? My vote ? (Tah-Daa!! ) The winner is : NappyHeadedHo !!!
And now, I fart in all directions VIGOROUSLY !! ..or maybe it’s just greasily..dunno..possibly just a bit too much of the spare ribs..
Not important to the non-readers so in evidence here; but – just checking in at Amazon while buying a copy of the book – it’s currently #1 in their Top 100.
Here we are fighting over oil (or money or whatever) and Iceland is almost energy independent. Only 491 days left (until the next dishonest jerk is elected).
http://tinyurl.com/2sve5e
Who cares about the war in Iraq…
We have to get ready for the war in Iran!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6997935.stm
32,
http://www.transcanada.com/keystone/index.html
I would suggest that we send out a post/questionire and Evaluate HOW our government officials are doing…
We might even get paid off’ to NOT do it…
What’s Greenspan’s reasoning? I can understand the comment from losers with poster boards, but how can this Fed chairman say that the war was for oil, when the easiest way to get cheaper oil would have been to drop sanctions against Iraq(and Iran)?
>>What’s Greenspan’s reasoning?
There’s limited war-profiteering possibility for Halliburton if we dropped the sanctions. How do you think President Cheney engineered the 3250% increase in the value of his options? Do you get that kind of return on YOUR stock investments??
Real question:
Has anyone (who worked directly with Bush) written a complimentary book about the president?
It seems like everybody who has worked with him, loathes him.
39 when the easiest way to get cheaper oil would have been to drop sanctions against Iraq
Maybe so… so why didn’t we?
As if Dubya would ever drop sanctions against Saddam.
Maybe then he could drop sanctions against North Korea to get them to give-up their Nuclear program… followed shortly thereafter by his dropping of the sanctions against Cuba to get Castro to embrace capitalism.
Yeah, like all the oil companies want is more oil on the market to lower oil prices.
Sounds like his comment was motivated by book and new-found love of Clinton.
Did he offer any new evidence why he thinks the way he does or is he just recycling someone else’s opinion?
RBG
None of this leads me to greater respect for Greenspan. What he’s really saying by contrasting Clinton with Bush is that unmitigated greed and imperialism are only bad when they’re ineffective. Sorry, but they’re just bad all around.
>>What he’s really saying by contrasting Clinton with Bush is that unmitigated greed and imperialism are only bad when they’re ineffective. Sorry, but they’re just bad all around.
What he’s saying by contrasting Clinton with Bush is that Clinton was a very effective president and Bush is a power-greedy short-sighted bungler.
I have to give any lifelong Republican a little nod of appreciation when they finally admit what is perfectly clear.
I want to see Greenspan on Dancing With The Stars – then we’ll really know what he’s made of.
I’m not reading all 46 posts. Are the Republican sheep crying out that “we get most of our oil from Canada” now? Morons, a million barrels are worth millionS of dollars!
In the book he also throws out facts on global warming, and points out that the carbon taxes and credits won’t accomplish anything.
>>In the book he also throws out facts on global warming
Yeah, on the economic impact of (the universally-recognized occurrence and progress of) global warming. At least he’s not a revisionist, denying that it’s happening and that mankind is a big contributor.
I haven’t read the book…why doesn’t he think a carbon tax or credits will work?
A basic principle of governance is that you tax behavior you want to discourage and reward behavior you do want.
Isn’t this exactly what carbon taxes/credits are all about?
#50 – “A basic principle of governance is that you tax behavior you want to discourage and reward behavior you do want.” – That’s exactly what the government of a free society is NOT supposed to do. Social is as direct an infringement on freedom as there is.
I used to be a proponent of a flat tax on income – but the more I see games with sin taxes and incentives the more I’ve become a fan of the Fair Tax ( http://www.fairtax.org ). The necessities of life are tax free for everyone after which everyone pays based on how they choose to spend their money. No penalties, no incentive, simply free choice.
#50 – Another thought: “tax behavior you want to discourage” – in other words: Earning an income is a behavior we want to discourage.
I’ve got an idea – quit wasting our time whining about the war and find a way to end our dependence on oil. For starters, get rid of your gas-guzzling cars and get something better. Not saying get a hybrid – I drive a regular ol’ car that gets 31-35mpg (both city and highway).
And #23, odd that you say that “Anyone who commits acts of hatred in the name of God is in contention for that upright-walking horned goat, Beelzebub.” I realize you are speaking out of passion, but do you realize that you commit an act of hatred by calling anyone a f’ing a’hole and attributing those words to God? Last time I checked God didn’t use language like that.
Greenspan also said that he thought removing Saddam was essential to secure the world’s oil supply. So it was all about oil for him!
This really lowers my opinion of him, as it seems dropping sanctions would have stabilized oil much easier(and selling out Israel too).
Feel free to update the left’s new-found hero’s comments:
“The fiscal guru backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies “was not the administration’s motive,” it should have been.” http://tinyurl.com/ynqsd3
RBG
So finally someone important admits it. And… I haven’t seen it mentioned on the monday evening news. Was it covered over the weekend, between ball games? Ah the weekend news. What a convenient place to bury an embarrassing item or two.
I knew the Iraq war was mainly about oil, a few weeks into it, when I heard a news item about how troops were used to guard the office of the oil ministry. But not anything else, like museums, and hospitals, etc. Those were all considered low priority, or NO priority, assets. Now why would an office complex that had all the oil well records be considered more important than museums filled with price relics? And why would our troops be sent there first, to guard those offices,
if….. this war had nothing to do with O-I-L.
Oh BTW, here’s the link that I couldn’t find a few minutes ago, about what I just ranted about. See….
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172643895.html
Well he recommended nuclear power. By don’t work, he could be saying that they won’t stop global warming. He could mean that the carbon taxes and credits and cap and trade won’t work because there would be too many cheaters. For example Russia and China are willing to take Europe’s money to pretend to lower their emissions.
#55 – excellent link – brings perspective to those (on the Left) who gloat. While a country founded on the principle of the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” what has happened with the advent of the 16th Amendment, Income Tax Act, and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is that we are ALL tax slaves. The social engineering made possible by the Tax Code now stands to take our country down: http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress
Kotlikoff has gone further to show that how the FairTax consumption tax will dramatically improve the prospects for American working families: http://snipurl.com/kotcomparetaxrates
The FairTax act of 2007 is a threat to continued use of the tax code to game tax favors by 53% of the lobbyists in Washington. Fully SIX Republican presidential candidates, but only ONE Democrat candidate (Mike Gravel), support the FairTax plan. I’ll be voting for the Republicans.
There is on-going litigation in the Federal District Court in Chicago regarding the validity of the 16th Amendment. Details of the litigation, including the pleadings, are available on my web site,
Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law