Greenspan says Iraq was about oil!!

[tbone]

What has always been suspected comes a little bit closer to truth:

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, for years an inscrutable seer on the economy, is causing a stir by alleging in his new memoir that "the Iraq war is largely about oil."

AFP: Greenspan memoir links Iraq war to US thirst for oil


He then goes on to criticize Bush's fiscal policy.

Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir is harshly critical of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress for abandoning their party's principles on spending and deficits.

In the 500-page book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Bush's first two Treasury secretaries, Paul O'Neill and John Snow, as essentially powerless.

Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," wrote Greenspan, a self-described "libertarian Republican."

"They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose" in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.

Greenspan attacks Bush on fiscal role - International Herald Tribune

Seems pretty dead on, for the fiscal policy criticism!

[garbagemanlb]

Well, he's a liberal hack.

[Stylerod]

Just so you guys can keep things in context

By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2007; A03

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."

[Publius]

I'm completely unsurprised. Greenspan thinks about everything from an economic point of view, and economically speaking an Iraq that is friendly to the U.S. is a much better situation in terms of oil supply than an Iraq that isn't. Given the oil situation around the world, it would make sense economically (if you view it in a vacuum) to make things as favorable to our oil interests as possible.

[RMNIXON]

Oil has been a National Security concern as far back as WWII if not well before that? What bothers me are the kind of simple idea slogans like "No WMD" or "No Blood for Oil" coming from people who claim to be intellectual? Iraq has always been a complex issue involving many concerns and motivations. What Greenspan did was make it clear to the Bush Whitehouse that securing oil in that part of the Middle East was important.

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Oil has been a National Security concern as far back as WWII if not well before that? What bothers me are the kind of simple idea slogans like "No WMD" or "No Blood for Oil" coming from people who claim to be intellectual? Iraq has always been a complex issue involving many concerns and motivations. What Greenspan did was make it clear to the Bush Whitehouse that securing oil in that part of the Middle East was important.

Then why not inform the public? If it is such a noble cause, why not tell the public this war is in part about securing future oil reserves? Are you afraid of what the public opinion might be?

[RMNIXON]

Depends on who you mean by the public? When some people trade rational discussion for slogans and conspiracy theories I am not sure they really want to understand much of anything?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Depends on who you mean by the public? When some people trade rational discussion for slogans and conspiracy theories I am not sure they really want to understand much of anything?

I mean the public. When the reasons for going into Iraq were given, one of them should have been 'to secure oil reserves' or whatever. Instead we get all this bullshit about liberating the Iraqis, WMDs, connections to terror, etc. Not once was oil mentioned. Again I ask, what were they afraid of? Slogans? Seriously?

[avsp]

I think its odd that Greenspan is claiming that the idea of removing Saddam to secure oil supplies was put to the White House by him when Cheney et el had been publically saying so for years. But then it could be true.

Either way their plan hasnt worked has it? Oil supplies are less secure now than ever before

Also the action wasnt even publically proposed as one of deposing Saddam anyway, ('its not about regime change' etc).

Greenspan makes the point saying he is "saddened" by the political nessecity of the spin. Why? Coz it all about credibility?

The consequence of damage to credibility is immense. Here just one example.
Theres a run on a bank in the UK at the moment as a consquence of the US sub-prime credit crunch thingy.
The UK govt is having difficulty stemming it.
Theres been lots of vox pop coverage of the queues on the telly. The view is that the govt arent to be believed coz of the 10 years of lies & spin of the Blair,admin. Nearly everyone said that, ..., several mentioned the lies of the Iraq war & WMD in particular

Obviously they've been selected for effect but even so.

I still dont see why the public could not be trusted to understand the geo-political points. To argue that they perfer slogans when they've been told slogans in the first place seem specious to me.

To argue that the public is incapable of understanding this stuff is not only untrue but also essebtially elitist any way.
It may be true that theres an ever increasing proportion of the public who arent interested in politics but that still provides no reason to disemble, not least coz its this kind of disembling that means that people are less & less willing to listen to politicans anyway, ..., but then maybe thats at least part of the point of the exercis, ..., or so I think in my darker momentsd

Either way the truer-ish slogan now is 'No oil for blood'.

And how outraged would the average Iraqi reading this thread be do you suppose?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

I mean the public. When the reasons for going into Iraq were given,

That wasnt the reason. That reason was removing an insane guy that liked to take over Europe's source of oil

[Rouger2]

We could not fight the war for oil that would be to crass for us to do. We had to free those people and give them democracy. The worlds life's blood is oil especially the US but of course oil did not concern us. We cannot even suggest that they pay us back with oil for all of the billions and billions of dollars that we spend over there. If Saddam was a ruler in Africa nothing would have been done to him unless his country had oil.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

I mean the public. When the reasons for going into Iraq were given, one of them should have been 'to secure oil reserves' or whatever. Instead we get all this bullshit about liberating the Iraqis, WMDs, connections to terror, etc. Not once was oil mentioned. Again I ask, what were they afraid of? Slogans? Seriously?

We did not post our troops around the oil reserves and let the rest of the non-oil producing country become whatever. If anything trying to keep the country whole helps those people get some of that income and not just to build gold plated palaces for Saddam. There is nothing wrong in the United States getting some return on our investment in Iraq. But you can't get far past that admission without some very vocal people shouting that as the only motive to all who will listen. This minor remark by Greenspan is a good case in point.