[b]Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil[/b]

[Mr_Perceptive]

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Graham Paterson
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.

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

[BT]

Oil certainly is a national security concern. Even Jimmy Carter recognized this.

Thus the Carter Doctrine.

[gipper]

The war simply and plainly, in most peoples' minds, was not simply for oil. But a helpful perspective on the importance of oil is this: any appreciable interruption in flow could exceed the 911 damage in deaths and displacements many hunderfold.

[Knutey]

Oil certainly is a national security concern. Even Jimmy Carter recognized this.

Thus the Carter Doctrine.

This IS indeed the case so why did your Fuehrer make up all that other bullshit instead and then back off them all ? Now he no longer wants victory, but only vague suckcess. Isnt that a gross betrayal of your trust?

[BT]

For those with an inkling of understanding about the issue, it wasn't one single issue that sent us to war , it was a plethora of issues.

The reasons for the war were sufficient, the selling of the war to the lowest common denominator and the resulting waste of time playing gotcha games was problematic.

You are stil hung up playing politics with this issue. I am looking for solutions not only from with the GOP but from the dems as well. And sadly i am not seeing much  from your side.

Domer has been right all along. It is not enough to be against someone or something, it is equally important to take a position and be for it.

Bringing the troops home willy nilly is nt a solution.. It is bumper sticker slogan.

And that just isn't good enough for this voter.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Oil was and has always been the main reason for this war.

The WMD crap was invented propaganda to get the suckers on board.

So was the nonsense about democracy in Iraq and the cruelty of Saddam. While it is true that Saddam was cruel, so were and are the people running Turkmenistan, Myanma rand many African nations. Democracy is obviously not a concern of someone who respects the democratic process so little as Juniorbush and Cheney.

I don't recall any one has advocated bringing the troops home willy nilly, whatever that means.

If there is no action in one year to unify and consolidate Iraq, we will have simply pissed away $100 billion, and 700 to 1000 more American troops will have been killed for naught.

I predict that if this continues for one year, this is exactly what we will see has happened. And furthermore, some of you moonbats will STILL be all for spending yet another year, another $100 billion and 1000 troops.

[BT]

I don't recall any one has advocated bringing the troops home willy nilly, whatever that means.

Murtha called for immediate redeployment.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So, willy nilly is immediate redeployment?

Obviously, the withdrawal would have to be an orderly one. Murtha is an ex soldier, he knows this.

[Michael Tee]

<<"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil," added Greenspan, who for decades had been one of the most respected U.S. voices on fiscal policies.>>

Notice that Greenspan doesn't claim it was ALL about oil, but he says "largely" about oil.  Although other factors might have motivated this war, oil was obviously the main motivating factor.  This is so obvious that anyone who has ever denied it has only besmirched his or her own credibility.

I think it's funny to think what all the cheerleaders of this wanton death and destruction, who tried for years to marginalize the "it's about the oil, stupid" POV by painting it as the POV of cranks, nuts and conspiracy buffs, will say about it now.  Is Greenspan too a crank, nut and/or conspiracy buff?  Or is he just doing it to "sell more books?"

You know the jig is up when even the high-ranking movers and shakers are saying the unspeakable.  I know this won't stop sirs and his ilk from continuing valiantly to defend the indefensible, only with ever-shrinking credibility to an ever-shrinking circle of True Believers.

[BT]

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html

[sirs]

D'OH     

[Michael Tee]

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."
=================================================================================
One of the most carefully worded denials I have ever seen.  It only reinforces my view of Greenspan as an unusually bright public figure, a real survivor and a very cautious man.  It's really brilliant. 

Read it very carefully.He's saying that it had to be for the oil.  At the same time, he's giving cover to the Bush administration by seeming to skate away from that very conclusion.  Only he hasn't skated away from it.

<<"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive.">>
Very true.  How can anyone tell WHAT motivates them?  Maybe they are acting in response to tiny voices in their heads that no one else knows about.  He did NOT say oil was their motive.   OTOH, he did not say oil was NOT their motive.  He did not say oil COULD NOT BE their motive.

<<"I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential.">>
In the context of whether oil motivated Saddam's take-down, Greenspan tells us (a) he won't say what the Bush motive was and (b) it was essential to take Saddam down.  Essential in what context?  Oil was the only factor mentioned in the lead-up to that remark.  If the context WASN'T oil, Greenspan, a very precise and careful man, would have had to mention in what context - - protection against WMD, bringing "democracy" to Iraq - - it was "essential" to overthrow Saddam.

And to make it all crystal clear, Greenspan throws in a little background for us:
<<Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." >>

As any idiot can see, it's all about the oil, there is no credible or valid other reason, and the administration, for painfully obvious reasons, cannot admit to that.

Case closed.  (It was never really a case, it was really always a slam-dunk.)

This is reiterated in Greenspan's next sentence:

<<"I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive.">>

Is it likely he means, "I'm so much smarter than Bush and Cheney that my motive wouldn't have been the same as their motive because they're not smart enough to come up with my motive"? 

Or is he saying, (a) I never really heard them give any motive, (b) my motive would have been oil, I thought it was essential, and (c) they must have figured it the same as I did, since there's no other logical way of looking at it?

[BT]

So Greenspan was the chief advocate of oil for blood?

[Michael Tee]

Greenspan was primarily an observer of U.S. "defence" policy.  The decisions weren't his to make, or even advocate.  But apparently he DID advocate, to quite a few people in the administration.

Greenspan was not part of the inner circle.  None of the accounts I've ever read of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet and others meeting to discuss what to do about Iraq ever seemed to mention Greenspan as part of the conference.  He spoke mainly to those on the periphery, probably hoping his views would trickle upwards.  I'm sure that once or twice he would also have had matters to discuss with Bush and Cheney and this topic would have come up.  But in the so-called "councils of war," the inner circle where the decisions of war and peace are made, I would think the chief advocates of war would have been Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, Perle, Feith, Abrams, etc.  There were a lot of war-mongers much more influential in the final decision than Greenspan.