Greenspan Says Iraq War Was About Oil

Sunday Times Of London:

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.

Read the whole story: Sunday Times Of London

Comments

[theeconomicfractalist]

06:49 PM on 09/16/2007

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.

[researcher]

04:30 PM on 09/16/2007

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.

[Nonamnesiac]

10:02 PM on 09/16/2007

If you're considering Obama, Edwards or Clinton, you're the American voter of which you talk. All 3 believe in keeping residual forces in Iraq.

[esquire07]

03:16 PM on 09/16/2007

"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.

[cognate]

02:43 PM on 09/16/2007

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.

[peterg76]

01:57 PM on 09/16/2007

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?

[msmaggie]

06:01 PM on 09/16/2007

Oh please. Sorry not everyone can be so pure and above filthy lucre. You cannot be this naive. Greenspan has always been apolitical, that's rather the point. And give the guy his due, do you think he could have made just a tad more money in the private sector?

It is rather extraordinary for him to speak out on a matter that isn't related to fiscal or monetary policy.

[poopdeck]

01:13 PM on 09/16/2007

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.

[TJTelecaster]

01:10 PM on 09/16/2007

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..!

[grainger5]

01:14 PM on 09/16/2007

I would. The paper used is biodegradable (to protect the environment)

[shockmagog]

01:57 PM on 09/16/2007

As long as the paper has some "tooth," I'm in.

[FogBelter]

01:03 PM on 09/16/2007

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.

[conservativeoriginalist]

01:47 PM on 09/16/2007

"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."

The "Left" (I don't know when it became a proper noun) didn't know anything, they tossed tin foil conspiracies at the wall in the hopes that something would stick. Granted, the result was the same, but the "Left" ended up being correct for the wrong reasons.

As far as vindication, the puppet government has been installed, Iraq's reserves have been taken off market, resulting in an increase in energy costs, billions in contracts have been paid to defense contractors and arms dealers, we have a perpetual war under the guise of fighting terrorism, the Patriot Act has been solidified as law, more preparations for the impending police state have been made via executive orders, and we have nothing to show for it but more debt, thousands of American service members dead, subsequent wars on the horizon, less freedoms, and higher fuel costs. Vindication requires some sort of justice. There is none in this case, and there won't be any. The Democrats feed at the same trough as the Republicans, and as far as I'm concerned, the partisan bickering is nothing but a ruse to keep us distracted.

If being right about a hypothetical conspiracy, albeit for the wrong reasons, is considered balance for all of the injustice done by our aristocracy, then you need to re-evaluate your priorities. Those who stood to gain have indeed raked in their piece of the pie, from the defense contractors to the politicians, and there will be no retribution for them, meanwhile the costs will be passed to us.

Don't applaud your precognitions. They are a hollow victory. Times like these, where the politicians and corporations have become one untouchable, abusive behemoth, call for a revolution, but I fear that Americans have become so indoctrinated, distracted, and soft that the option is no longer viable.

[shockmagog]

02:40 PM on 09/16/2007

"The "Left" (I don't know when it became a proper noun) didn't know anything, they tossed tin foil conspiracies at the wall in the hopes that something would stick. Granted, the result was the same, but the "Left" ended up being correct for the wrong reasons."

First of all, bullshit. We took advantage of information from reliable sources that were made available to those us who took the time and effort to look for it. It was information from verifiable sources outside the "Media Bubble." If there were any conspiracy theories proffered, they were quickly and vociferously, quashed.

"The Democrats feed at the same trough as the Republicans, and as far as I'm concerned, the partisan bickering is nothing but a ruse to keep us distracted."

Please do not confuse the "Left" with the Democratic Party. I, among others, however, feel the Democratic Party is the most likely body to steer (by Liberals) in the direction you so eloquently put as your own desires for America's future.

"Don't applaud your precognitions. They are a hollow victory."

I think that point was made clear by FogBelter.

[FogBelter]

06:35 PM on 09/16/2007

You paint an interesting paradox here ... it seems you are saying if people on the Left, like myself, viewed the invasion of Iraq as an overt act of Imperialism instead of an action of National Defense we were engaged in throwing "tin foil conspiracies at the wall" ... You then go on to imply that if the Left got it right after all it was only be accident. Quaint.

The American People may not be great at processing information, but they don't like being played for a fool either. The Moral visage of the Conservatives has been collapsing everyday, and unlike a few years ago, I don't hear the rabid rhetoric from their average Joe foot soldiers that I once did.

People don't like being manipulated and lied to, and that has been MO of the Right since Reagan went to Washington on his Hobby Horse. Make an American, of whatever political persuasion, feel like a fool and you make an enemy.

As for the Iraq Puppet Government, here is my prediction ... it will collapse, whether the US is there to prop it up or not ... and the true enemy of American interests in Iraq isn't any of the various groups that oppose our will ... but the anarchy we can't control. In time, whether due to a plan or necessity, American troops will withdraw. Since it will be more likely be because of Necessity there will be no time to withdraw the civilian Contract Workers, and many of them will be slaughtered in the crossfire which arises from the mayhem ... further damaging to the reputation of the US in the eyes of the multiple Nations who contributed their citizens as contractors for the American cause.

Do I view a defeat for America in Iraq as a Victory for the Left? Of course not, but I also believe the multiple problems that currently face the American people could have been avoided if as a country we substituted reason for jingoism, and discussion for marginalization.

[shockmagog]

01:54 PM on 09/16/2007

It almost always seems to come back to America's "Media Bubble." We all knew what you, Heretic, and others have been saying all along--and we knew it through no help from the Corporate Media.

[Mercedes]

01:01 PM on 09/16/2007

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?

[maxfusion]

12:36 PM on 09/16/2007

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.

[Heretic]

01:12 PM on 09/16/2007

AH, as predicted, the swift-boating of Greenspan begins. I should browse on over to FreeperLand to see if this is the current take as to why the sudden revelations of a life-long Republican hack like Greenspan sours on the Bush administration.

Sure, Andrea Mitchell, Greenspan's wife, is a renowned journalist (read: librul media if yer a wingnut); and Greenspan goes out and writes a tell-all memoire because his wife is threatening to "cut him off" in the bedroom. Very interesting take, indeed.

Uh-huh. Sure. It couldn't possibly be because the guy expects to sell a book or two or a couple of million and clear his conscience at the same time. No, couldn't be.

Or that Greenspan only represents one side of the grand chasm in the Republican party, the old guard of fiscal responsibility vs the big-spending neocons & the Bush administration that has outspent ALL presidents over the last 225 years combined.

Of course not. In wingnut brainstem, it must be all about sex. Actually, that doesn't suprise me in light of recent and ongoing revelations about people like Larry Craig and Mark Foley and David Vitter.

How easily you dismiss a well-respected opinion to people on both sides of the aisle because it isn't the one you want to hear. You should wait until Monday to get Rush's take on this before you spout such inane idiocies. Not that his will be much better, but at least you'll all be on the same page. LOL!

[shockmagog]

01:45 PM on 09/16/2007

Absolutely!

[WilliePilgrim]

12:21 PM on 09/16/2007

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.

[MalgreLui]

12:26 PM on 09/16/2007

That's what I never understood either. It seems to me that there would have been support for a well stated case about oil and the need to protect ourselves, one way or the other.

[shockmagog]

02:17 PM on 09/16/2007

Here is a list of excuses the Right Wing were told (and subsequently parroted) for the invasion and occupation of Iraq:

1. To prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
2. For regime change.
3. To further the war on terror.
4. Because of Iraq's violation of United Nations resolutions.
5. Because of Saddam Hussein's evil dictatorship and actions.
6. Because of a lack of weapons inspections in Iraq.
7. To liberate Iraq.
8. Because of Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda.
9. Because Iraq was an imminent threat.
10. To disarm Iraq.
11. To conclude the gulf war of 1991.
12. Because Hussein was a threat to the region.
13. For the safety of the world.
14. To support the United Nations.
15. Because the United States could (easy victory).
16. To preserve peace around the world.
17. Because Iraq was a unique threat.
18. To transform the region.
19. As a warning to other terrorist nations.
20. Because Hussein hates the United States and will act against it.
21. Because history calls the United States to action.

http://www.rojisan.com/blog/2004/12/21_reasons_to_invade_iraq.html

I don't see the word "oil" on the list. I suppose the Power Elite associated with the Bush Administration felt a "war for oil" would not be salable to the typically disinterested American public.

I also think that the Bush Administration made the calculation that if the Iraq invasion was couched in terms of oil, then the question would be raised, "well, wouldn't it be more prudent to conserve energy and heavily regulate the Oil Industry."

[innerpeace]

12:20 PM on 09/16/2007

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

[BreadandRoses]

12:29 PM on 09/16/2007

I still can't figure out why he hasn't been banned for the thousandth time.

[maxfusion]

12:40 PM on 09/16/2007

Right wing extremist, I think not. This is the Muslim mindset you lefties are so anxious to embrace. Paulrevere is the poster child of the extreme racist left.

[innerpeace]

12:44 PM on 09/16/2007

maxfusion-Paul Revere is a right wing extremist.You need to get out more and learn about your own kind or get honest.

[Mike169]

12:48 PM on 09/16/2007

You can find rantings of paulrevere's kind on places such as the aryan nation sites, the nazi party sites, the Ku Klux Klan sites and all the places where the right wing of the Republican party meet to enjoy a good hate session.

[Zhonni]

12:17 PM on 09/16/2007

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.

[Birdman]

12:11 PM on 09/16/2007

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.

[Sidewhispers]

12:06 PM on 09/16/2007

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.