Greenspan: “Oil Was Not The Administration’s Motive” For War

September 17th, 2007 Posted By Pat Dollard.

ph2006012700873.jpg

According to this, Greenspan admits the entire “war for oil” notion was not only not the President’s, but his own.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.

Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.

“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”

In his new book “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Greenspan wrote: “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday rejected the comment, which echoed long-held complaints of many critics that a key motivating force in the war was to maintain U.S. access to the rich oil supplies in Iraq.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Gates said, “I have a lot of respect for Mr. Greenspan.” But he disagreed with his comment about oil being a leading motivating factor in the war.

“I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don’t believe it’s true,” Gates said.

“I think that it’s really about stability in the Gulf. It’s about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It’s about aggressive dictators,” Gates said.

Greenspan retired in January 2006 after more than 18 years as chairman of the Fed, the U.S. central bank, which regulates monetary policy.

He has been conducting a round of interviews coinciding with the release of his book, which goes on sale on Monday.

In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W. Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.”

But Greenspan’s main support for Saddam’s ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.

“My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day” passing through,” Greenspan said.

Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean “chaos” to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.

Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.

DISMAY WITH DEMOCRATS

Greenspan, who in his memoir criticized Bush and congressional Republicans for abandoning fiscal discipline and putting politics ahead of sound economics, also expressed dismay with the Democratic Party in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on Monday.

Greenspan told the Journal he was “fairly close” to former President Bill Clinton’s economic advisers, but added, “The next administration may have the Clinton administration name, but the Democratic Party … has moved … very significantly in the wrong direction.” He cited its populist bent, especially its skepticism of free trade. Clinton’s wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is the Democratic presidential front-runner.

Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the Journal he was not sure how he would vote in the 2008 election.

“I just may not vote,” he was quoted as saying, adding, “I’m saddened by the whole political process.”


    • Young Americans Documentary
    • Learn More About Pat
    • blogroll

      • A Soldier's Perspective
      • American Soldier
      • Ann Coulter
      • Attack Machine
      • Bill Ardolino
      • Bill Roggio
      • Black Five
      • Blonde Sagacity
      • Breitbart
      • Chicagoray
      • Confederate Yankee
      • Day by Day Cartoon
      • Euphoric Reality
      • Flopping Aces
      • Free Republic
      • Frontier Web Design
      • Hot Air
      • Hugh Hewitt
      • Ian Schwartz
      • Instapundit
      • Little Green Footballs
      • Matt Sanchez
      • Michael Fumento
      • Michael Yon
      • Michelle Malkin
      • Military.com
      • Move America Forward
      • Mudville Gazette
      • Pass The Ammo
      • Roger L. Simon
      • Sportsman's Outfit
      • TCOverride
      • The Belmont Club
      • The Big God Blog
      • The Crimson Blog
      • The Daily Gut
      • The Drudge Report
      • The PoliTicking Timebomb
      • The Pundit Review

7 Responses

  1. Dan (The Infidel)

    What a geezer. Alan needs to loosen his depends. They are preventing enough oxygen from getting to his brain.

  2. Irish Gal

    Well that clears everything up… No wonder the housing industry is in disarray. He was left the chairman about 15 years too long.

  3. Lamplighter

    Of course, the MSM spun his comments to say “Bush Admin went to war for oil.” Let’s say it’s true: well, you can thank the lefties/environmentalists for that. In the 1970’s, we were approx. 30% reliant on foreign oil. Since then, we haven’t built a nuclear power plant (like they have in France), a refinery, nor drilled for any new oil offshore or in Anwar. And now, 30+ years later, we are 65% reliant on foreign oil. So, thank you lefites/environmental extremists for causing us to go to war in Iraq. Blame yourselves!

  4. Mark Tanberg

    Context, context, context, every thing he said was correct, it’s the MSM thats screwing it all up and once again printing lying headlines. Too many people read only the headline and then spout crap. There is nothing wrong with these statements
    In his new book “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Greenspan wrote: “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.” Every war is about the ingredients of the particular nation involved and oil money used to fuel jihad is a major factor. (what should we do with the Saudis?)
    “My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day” passing through,” Greenspan said.

    Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean “chaos” to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.

    Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.” And thats the truth about this issue, Oil is a factor but it’s not an “Oil Grab”. Once again CONTEXT.

  5. Dan (The Infidel)

    Guess his Depends aren’t so tight after all. I still don’t like the WAPO, Woodward or Mr Mitchell (er I mean Greenspan).

    :mrgreen:

  6. LftBhndAgn

    Greenspan Backtracks On Iraq War Oil Claim
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/the_skinny/main3267685.shtml

    CBS has it now.

  7. Jeff

    The truth is zionists like Greenspan have dragged the West into The Middle East conflict, on the back of a series of false flag terror attacks in the West. Thats the truth. Thats why you don’t hear it.

Respond now.

alert Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.

alert If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.

:mrgreen::neutral::twisted::arrow::shock::smile::???::cool::evil::grin::idea::oops::razz::roll::wink::cry::eek::lol::mad::sad::!::?::beer: