Alan Greenspan on Why he Wrote That the Iraq War Was About Oil

I had an hour-long conversation with Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman. He was talking about the economy and his new memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.

He talks about the presidents he has worked with -- from Richard M. Nixon, who made him feel uncomfortable, and Gerald R. Ford, who he liked. He talks about the years he worked alongside Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in the Ford administration.

His Libertarian stands are much in evidence, as he assesses security issue versus civil liberties issues.

And he explained why he wrote that the war is Iraq is about oil.

Here is part of what he said:

Watch the entire conversation tonight on PBS or see it tomorrow on the Charlie Rose website.

Comments

[condieshoes]

Electric Razor you are right.

[Wiredwilly]

Anyone ever hear of Biofuel ?
Bush, Greenspan, Huessin, Bin Laden, and "Prince" Bandar are all obsolete.
Soon they will all BE fossil fuel.
Can't someone put these psycho-farts in a room,
let them " liberate" each other, and leave the rest of us alone ?

[CarmanK]

Greespan has already explained away the War for oil quote. He's a realist. Iraq had oil, the US economy needed to control that oil and thus toppling Sadam was justified. Like so many radicals, Greenspan worships free markets-
- the end justifies the means and others lives are just "a small price to pay" for Oil. Oh,that's a Republican mantra these days?

[Danny]

Mr. Rose, do you ever watch Keith Olbermann?

[kellygrrrl]

gee, Mr. Greenspan, you couldn't have imparted these pearls of expert wisdom sooner ... say, maybe when you were in a position to have done something to effect change rather than when you wanted to sell your book?

[straightshooter]

While predictable, it is nonetheless disappointing that Greenspan has decided for whatever reason, to throw his support behind the myth that the illegal, immoral and unprovoked invasion/occupation of Iraq was necessary. With Rose's apparent support, he falsely states that Sadaam intended to invade Saudi Arabia in 1990 after occupying Kuwait (with the apparent approval of Washington as expressed to him by Ambassador April Glaspie, administration spokesperson Margaret Tutweiller and Under Sec. of State Kelly.) In fact, he had no intention of crossing the border into Saudi Arabia. The fiction that he intended to do so was propagated by Cheney who lied about satellite imagery.
Nor, prior to the US led invasion/occupation in 2003 was he considered by his neighbors (including Israel) to be a "threat." In fact, despite Washington/U.K led barbaric sanctions imposed against his people for 12 years that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and immense suffering, Sadaam repeatedly made overtures to the US calling for rapproachment and normalizing of relations. Greenspan's assertion that Saddam may have been attempting to procure a nuclear device from Russian sources is entirely without foundation. In short, I am profoundly disappointed in Greenspan for his statements of Rose's show - just so much propaganda and warmongering.

[realpolitic]

As the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, was it appropriate for Alan Greenspan to be giving advice to presidents about which foreign leaders to depose? He should stick to his area of expertise which is, of course, economics and not play spy master.

[radmul]

Why are these people still called experts when they are wrong on EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!

[ProfiteerInCheif]

What!? Oil? No way! You mean to tell me this war is about oil? Well I'll be damned. Go figure. I thought it was about wmd, 911, democracy, yada yada. Shame on me. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on Bush, how's it go?

[meneghin]

One more republican who made a very convenient transition to libertarian. No surprise there. Not very impressive however. Never showed any real courage (and he certainly had plenty of opportunities) in spite of all the wisdom he now claims to have had. How convenient! A man is judged by his actions and it's a little too late now to try to make himself look good through a few cleverly orchestrated appearances and interviews. He also comes through as very detached and rather cold given the costly consequences of a policy he was actually supporting. No regrets at all? Can he translate into numbers the pain and suffering of the victims in the US and Iraq in addition to he billions of dollars?
Doesn't look like his sharing now his postumous wisdom can do any good for his legacy.

[priscianusjr]

I suspect that Greenspan's reasoning may be based on the "one-percent doctrine" that was adopted by the US government, supposedly after 9/11 but I wouldn't be surprised if it was already in place before that. Anyway, according to this doctrine, attributed to Dick Cheney, if there's a one-percent chance of something happening, it should be treated as a certainty. Now, if we apply this to Saddam and oil, then if there was a one-percent chance that he might someday control the Persian Gulf, we might as well consider it a done deal. Did you ever hear of anything so stupid -- for so many reasons -- in your life? And yet, this is the official, albeit supposedly "secret," doctrine of US foreign policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine

[frankifrost]

Is he an idiot or a liar?
He has admitted that he is the worse of the two: he is a liar (by going along to get along... when he could have spoken up and made a difference.
HOW CAN HE LIVE WITH HIMSELF?
IN PSYCHIATRIC TERMS, HE MUST BE A SOCIOPATH.

[ahornick]

So we kill and maim thousands and spend trillions on a foreign policy that more than likely will turn out as stable as the last 50 years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Meanwhile, no deaths and less money could have definitely made us energy independent and allowed us to walk away from all the despots in the Middle East.

A trillion or so dollars could pretty much provide solar panels and geothermal heating/cooling for every home and major building in the USA.

What could you expect though. Bush was not only an oil man, he was such an incompetent one, he was one of the few that could lose money at it.

[ApolloSpeaks]

speakingtruth2power writes:

"Nice regurgitation of the Bush Doctrine, AS.

Did you slam a quart of Kool-aide to start?"

The answer is no. I just did my homework on Wilson. And besides, Kool aide is unhealthy junk; to quench my thirst I much prefer nectar and ambrosia.

[AlteredEgo]

Charlie, I have to say, you are much too easy on interview subjects like Greenspan, Kissinger, etc and do not challenge them to justify their pronouncements. Stop letting them get away with spin in place of substance. Confrontation doesn't have to be unpleasant. You can still be a nice guy and an Ed Murrow.