Greenspan Says Iraq War Was About Oil

Money and Oil.

Pakistan has no oil. It does have both bin Laden, his associates, and WMD's. Iraq had none of the latter, but did and does have oil. Of the top ten world companies by assets and profits, two are oil related: Exon and British Petroleum; and five are financial or financial related: Citibank, AIG, Bank of America, HSBC, and Fannie Mae.

The former Fed chairman's recent response about his inability to either recognize, or effect regulation, or at a minimum use his office as a bully pulpit to draw atention to the looming credit disaster caused by irresponsible lending practices - is akin to the sincerity epitomized of looking under the dinner table for WMD's.

Both individuals will share a special place in American history.

the true culprits in this war for oil.

THE AMERICAN VOTER!

evangels neo cons are you really proud now that you put a sociopath into office because he mentioned jesus once in awhile in his speechs.

this war was waged so far off from jesus teachings it is scary. america the most industrialized christian nation on earth and we are imperialists and war mongers. scary very scary.

"Greenspan Says Iraq War Was About Oil."

No... its not true.... The Decider said it was WMD's.... the Decider said it was abut "Spreading Democracy and Freedom."

What a joke.

Dead Troops = Halliburton Profit = Money in Dick Cheneys Bloody Pockets.

Iran is next. More killing... more lying... more profit for Bush/Cheney.

The Middle Easterners that sit on oil fields have to sell it. They can't drink it, bathe in it or water their farms with it. They are utterly dependent on the West's need and willingness to buy their oil. There is no need to make war on them for oil.

Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, nor did he have ties to bin Laden.

He did however lop half a dozen SCUD missiles into Israel after the American-led coalition attacked him in 1991. True, he did first invade Kuwait. But look at the map of the Middle East: all of the borders were drawn up by Western imperial powers, starting in 1919 and ending in 1948 with the creation of Israel.

There is no such thing as Islamofascism. There is no clash of civilizations. Al Qaida did not attack us because they hate our freedoms.

Fundamentalist Islamic militancy is but a reaction to our brazen attempts to stick it to them.

Well, it's more of a revelation when you're the *first* to state the truth, not the last. Ever since the day US troops guarded the oil ministry and neglected their Geneva Convention (not to mention moral) obligations to hospitals and museums, *no-one* has had any question about the motives of the war.

I'm just curious what part of this has "shaken the White House". The fact that a man who loyalty has always been to money, and never to parties, ideologies or people, would say something unflattering about politicians whose popularity is beyond salvage? That Greenspan is basically admitting that the Iraqis aren't going to cheerfully hand over the oil to the people who destroyed their country and tortured their citizens, meaning the entire Iraq War has been a complete failure? Or simply that in the battle between fantasy and reality, if Greenspan jumps ship and joins reality, fantasy must be doing really, really badly?

On the poopdeck you can see more of the world than on any other deck!
Sure, Iraq was about oil from the beginning, but why invade Iraq? Remember the neo-con's plan? It was Iraq first and as soon as possible thereafter Iran and Syria would follow. Oilman Bush must have known that an attack on Iran would bring great uncertainty to the world's crude oil market for and unpredictable length of time and if he did not understand that, the "Seven Sisters" would have surely told him so. Did he really believe that Iranian oil export could be restored to the market within a few months? (The oft-heard argument that since WE do not buy crude from Iran WE will not suffer shortfalls is misleading because the current buyers of Iranian oil would immediately begin to buy crude in "our" markets). In any event, oil from Iraq might just have compensated for the transient loss from Iran to keep gas prices in the USA within reasonable bounds. Israel's current critics of Bush are wrong. Iran WAS the major target from the beginning and Iraq was merely a convenient stepping stone with lots of black gold in the ground. "Nobody could have predicted then that it would be a slippery stone" (freely adapted from a General Petraeus statement). I wonder what the "Seven Sisters" tell President Bush today about "regime change in Iran"! I bet they do not like his bluster one bit.

Not about money Allen you stupid pig lying shit it's about fucking MONEY $$$..

Dirty Green Paper..!

I wouldn't wipe my ass with your fucking book you stupid shit..!

Well, thank you Mr. Greenspan, a little late, but as one gets older flirting with honesty can sometimes be good.

Of course the Left in the United States has been aware intervention in Iraq was a ploy to grab the oil there ever since Bush 41 enticed Saddam to invade Kuwait by sending mixed messages to him through the US Ambassador to Iraq at the time, April Glaspie:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

Being that Greenspan has been on the inner circle of America's Power Elite for decades, if he states oil was the reason for intervention in Iraq, he should be listened to ... few have had the access to the players involved with the Iraq gameplan that Greenspan has.

I'd be curious to see if Greenspan is still invited to Bohemian Grove after his book hits the shelves.

And for those on the Left who knew all along what a grevious act of Imperalism formed the foundation for the years of Patriotic Iraq War hypebole to be built upon there should be a sense of vindication.

But then again, any satisfaction at Greenspan's revelation must be tempered by the fact that, although it proves the point the Left has known since the beginning of the Bush Family's fascination with the conquest of Iraq, a great number of the American People have been conditioned through the Media ...

... that it is better to be Wrong than Left.

All I can say to you again, trolls, is what I've been saying ever since Bush invaded Iraq: BUSH'S INVASION OF IRAQ WAS, IS, AND WILL ALWAYS BE ABOUT GETTING THE IRAQI OIL. You used to say I was an idiot and was wrong. Now do you believe me?

The biggest fraud of the last century is now trying to cover his ass. It won't work. Google up his 1977 speech, and tell me this isn't the greatest flip flop man since Richard Nixon. I'm thinking that cute young wife of his is a democrat, and is tightening the the jaws of the vaginal wrench.

Has anyone ever figured out why the neo-cons ever denied the fact that the war was really about oil? As a matter of fact, if they had only admitted it at the very beginning of the self-destructive binge of flag waving, they'd at least have my admiration for being honest. And, considering the world at large, fighting for oil is as necessary as a person fighting for air. If someone is suffocating someone else, we don't hear from the sidelines "well, it's just a struggle for oxygen." I suppose we can "get-off-of" oil more easily than we can evolve to live without oxygen, but almost by definition all globally scaled systems are gigantic and beyond complete control for us puny humans..so why don't the neo-cons just say what it is they're up to instead of hiding behind some vague historically imaginative idea of "freedom". They seem, for all their claims of being deeply versed in history, to be just plain superficial and dishonest...and of course, they match their political opponents in this contest; a contest where to gain admission one has to leave their ability to see two sides of an equation, at the door.

Paulrevere-You right wing extremists should crawl back into the woodwork like cockroaches that you are.

The PM of "Austria" said, Australia sent troops for the sake of oil.

Yet, the two oil men (Bush & Cheney) wouldn't admit it. But then again they can't, they can't because of the outrage that would ensue.

Duh!!! I did not need this old coot to tell me that, there has been plenty of evidence since the Mid 90's all anyone has to do is vist the PNAC site a look through their history and their asperations for the middle east. Then take a look at the list of members, most of the members of PNAC are in Bush's cabinet well most were in Bush's cabinet many have left or have resigned. This is not hard to understand, well maybe Faux veiwers will call Greenspan a liar.

I hate it when these rats squeal after they've jumped ship. I have no respect for anyone who is "only following orders" albeit against his/her conscience. And then to have the shamelessness to make money via a book about (what?) innocent complicity (?). Sometimes book burning seems not such a bad idea.