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

[cognate]

Lets cut the self-righteous indignation that Saddam, admittedly a nasty dictator, was after the Gulf region.

Take a look at the map: there is this large country of Iraq squeezed out of the Gulf by tiny statelets (Kuwait, Qatar, U.A.E.) which were created by the British following WWI to further British and later American imperialist interests.

Why is the Middle East, most of it Arab speaking and Islamic, broken up into a dozen countries if not to prevent Arabs from being too powerful? We are not innocent of the troubles brewing there.

So what if a Saddam gains control over the regional oil? He wouldn't be able to drink it, bathe in it or water his lawn with it. He would have to sell it. If he asked too much, the rest of the world could stop wheat deliveries.

If Greenspan were Libertarian as he claims to be, he would also defend Arab aspirations to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Um, guilty conscience? Hmmm....ya gotta wonder how much of their oil we'd be importing
if BushCo chose to drop 1/2 trillion into green tech instead of unaccountable 'defense' spending, likely as not we'd have cars in 10 years that could run on a combination of cat crap and bad manners, no shortage of those, and we'd never need another barrel OF their stupid oil, and a long, long laundry list of people would be having to look for that all-important 'day job'...can't have that...war is a racket, and so is the oil biz...

Side note: One good thing to come out of all of
this is that someone's now built a 100MPG motorcycle, runs on diesel/can run on biodiesel, you can make that out of soybeans and stuff...

[peterg76]

"Why he Wrote That the Iraq War was About Oil"

Because it was about oil.

Basically, Greenspan is going back to fantasy WMD's and the notion that greed trumps everything and the US doesn't need to care who the legitimate owner of the oil really is.

True, Saddam Hussein was dangerous, because he controlled a lot of money (Greenspan more than anyone would understand the damage and injustice that enables). But the weapons inspectors proved Hussein was not an imminent threat and however much he might want to blockade the Straits of Hormuz, he did not have the means - hence the fictional WMD's. Oil matters, obviously, but going to war for the purpose of stealing oil is still a war crime.

Sometimes an inadvertant confession to treason, war crimes and exploitation of the poor to benefit the rich is just an inadvertant confession to treason, war crimes and exploitation of the poor to benefit the rich.

[Robert59]

Saddam didn't have the means to project that kind of power. I'm convinced Greenspan is flat out wrong. He doesn't even address how implausible his belief is.

With two wings' worth of aircraft on the ground and another carrier in the Gulf, the Iranian naval, air, and ground forces, the Kuwait and Saudi militaries, how the hell was Saddam going to seize the Straits of Hormuz?

Greenspan is still working for the Bushies. He spears them on their economic policies, but he's the one who increased the Money Supply (print, print, print).

By critizing the administration for one of its policies he is trying to convince us of his sincerity.

This is just a new rationalization for going to war. 9-11 and Hussein, WMDs and Hussein, Democracy to the Middle East, and since those have either been disproven or not succeeded we go back to finding a cause for war; he might have cut off the flow of oil.

And if pigs had wings they might fly.

By not verbally spearing him to his chair showing how stupid his argument is the media gives the Bush another forum to spread disinformation.

The the war is about oil; it's about taking their oil and making it ours.

Time to mail another check to Move On.

[martinchill]

petro dollars.

hussein switched from the dollar to the euro.


that did it - pure and simple.

[Zhonni]

You are right. It is common knowledge in the military that Saddam was weaker than he was in 1991.

[Henry]

And here I thought Sadaam was the Repuclican "buddy" figure during the Reagan administration. Do these people suffer some lack of awareness? Do they go with the financial flow? Are they all corrupt, self centered, double dealers?
You observed Patreus, he fucked up when he stated he did not know whether America was safer or not. It is a redeeming shimmer that he's not completely corrupt. Like his leader, the mega corrupt. And the ineffable Al, I think he could pick your pocket while shaking your hand. It's all pretty disgusting to see what we are.

[baylaw73]

"Do these people suffer some lack of awareness? Do they go with the financial flow? Are they all corrupt, self centered, double dealers? "
Yes, and yes.

[Soulsurfer]

You betcha, and Mistah Greenjeans was back pedaling big time, didn't realize that the motive wasn't as widely recognized as he thought! The MSM and guvmint is STILL pushing the various types of manure from '02.

[LightningJoe]

Yeah, but then the hearing recessed, Petraeus got a phone call, and came back and "adjusted" that statement. He may not have all the corruption licks down yet, but he sure wants to play that game. He confided in an Iraqi government aquaintance that he has presidential ambitions for 2012, which puts a question to his military dedication right there.

Generals aren't supposed to play politics, and the conscientious ones don't make statements that can be taken that way.

MoveOn was right to ask the question they did, about Petraeus' motives and loyalties.

What's interesting to me, is that Greenspan has any political opinions whatsoever. We sure never saw that when he was married to the FED.

And we should never have heard that about Petraeus either.

Regarding the sanity of Saddam specifically threatening America's oil supply, when all he (theoretically) had was one or two nukes, I'd have to say that Greenspan sells us short here.

If Saddam or anyone were to make that threat, the proper response would be to make sure he and the world knew that our own bombs were in the air on alert, and then to go ahead and break his blockade. The rest would be endgame; and even Saddam isn't that crazy.

[bethinCary]

watched it last night Charlie. Was a very interesting interview.
I don't see that Chrman. Greenspan changed his position from what he said in the book-he only tried to throw more arguments in about Saddam.
He tried to throw in th "nuclear suitcase" argument which does not fly with me and he has no business making those "fearmongering" statements when 6 yrs later they've never been proven.
What HAS been proven is that Ledeen (AIPAC) and Franklin were resposible for taking the Niger docs and bringing them to the US about yellowcake-one of the reasons for trying to dispute Joe Wilson. Those docs were known to be bogus by France and Germany-yet our own CIA buys it? How convenient if you are looking for a reason to go to war-to accept forged documents and not try to disqualify them.
The suitcase arguemnt does not hold up-and Mr Greenspan needs to stop citing that- when there was and is NO proof.
I believe Franklin is in jail now-for other charges. But he is known to be a liar. Yet this is whose disinformation is being allowed to be spread.

[The Collinbrandt]

I agree with bethinCary. Seems like many republicans that accidently tell the truth, are somehow forced to backpeddle. Looks like someone got to Greenspan with Bush talking points and encouraged Greenspan to give an "hurah, hurah" for the neverending war story.

[Binx101]

What is really interesting is the soft-ball interview. I have a love-hate thing for Rose - if its an actor or director - the questions are deep. If its an American Politician or former official - its all PC.

Greenspan talks as though the US has a sovereign right over resources that we don't own. Why? Because we're the US. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have an influence impose ourselves for our preservation ... but ... how does one justify this omnipotent royalist right to impose ourselves. Saddam had to go !!! Why?? and on what authority do we speak ?? Okay he had to go.. let's assume that's correct - why did we have to be sure that he got executed before Charlie got to interview him ?

Sorry - Alan Greenspan has a degree of ostensible credibility because he had a finger on the interest knobs, and quite competently for a period of our history. He is an economist and on matters of economy and currency markets he speaks with great maturity and alacrity. However - his comments and opinions of our engagement in Iraq and Gulf is no more relevant than asking the Iron Chef.

[WoodyCPM]

General Strike! Tuesday, November 6, 2007!

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/0081720

Pass it on!

[mommadona]

Sounds like it's time to break out the ORANGE, and the walking shoes.

[BushSunkOurShip]

What type of shotgun does Cheney use when he takes the people hunting , to change their mind , when they speak out about this administration's Lies , deceit and corruption???