Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil
Times Online ^ | 9/16/07

Posted on 09/15/2007 4:21:02 PM PDT by freespirited

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.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alangreenspan; barkingmoonbat; energy; fed; iraqwar; mrandreamitchell; oil; seniledementia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last
I guess we now have an idea of what being married to Andrea Mitchell does to a man's brain.
1 posted on 09/15/2007 4:21:09 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Of course. WW II was about oil, too. Oil determined much of the strategy.


2 posted on 09/15/2007 4:22:40 PM PDT by RightWhale (Snow above 2000')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Then when will we be claiming it?


3 posted on 09/15/2007 4:25:36 PM PDT by elizabetty (The job of POTUS is not about ideology alone; it is about COMPETENCE to do the job WELL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

ALL wars are about global strategery and issues that involve the security of the nation.

Free control of oil being one of those issues.

So my answer to this is... so?


4 posted on 09/15/2007 4:26:29 PM PDT by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

It was for oil? Fine. With. Me.


5 posted on 09/15/2007 4:27:13 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (...."We're the govt, and we're here to hurt."....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Can’t these chowderheads understand that oil is the lifeblood of the world economy? Of course it’s all about oil, Greenspan.


6 posted on 09/15/2007 4:27:46 PM PDT by Zman516 (socialists & muslims -- satan's useful idiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Perhaps Greenspan engineered the recession that gave us Clinton.


7 posted on 09/15/2007 4:28:45 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

It was more about Israel than oil, IMO. Saddam was funding Palestinian homicide bombers. He was an obstacle to peace.


8 posted on 09/15/2007 4:29:17 PM PDT by B Knotts (Tancredo '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Still angry because Gore Lost.


9 posted on 09/15/2007 4:30:23 PM PDT by Son House ($$Proud Memeber of Vast Right Wing, Out To Lower Your Tax Rates For More Opportunities.$$)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Gotta sell those memoirs ya know.


10 posted on 09/15/2007 4:30:24 PM PDT by 386wt (Be free and don't die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zman516

Of course. Didn’t know Jazzman was one of those Greenie types. OTOH it isn’t a great surprise.


11 posted on 09/15/2007 4:30:30 PM PDT by RightWhale (Snow above 2000')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I always wondered why we secured Iraq’s oil infrastructure before anything else.

Does Greenspan realize what a complete fool this makes him look like?

Iraq oil production dropped and we didn’t do a thing about it. Kinda shoots that theory in the brain.


12 posted on 09/15/2007 4:30:44 PM PDT by DoughtyOne ((Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking its heritage.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
First of all, this is a British rag...

Did AG really say this or was his quote taken out of context?

If AG was in fact being so honest, did he apologize for creating the sub-prime mortgage crisis and liquidity meltdown that may lead to an recession next year?

13 posted on 09/15/2007 4:30:57 PM PDT by John123 ("What good fortune for the governments that the people do not think" -- Adolf Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
The Headline should really read:
ALAN GREENSPAN HAS GONE SENILE, RANTS ILLOGICAL BULLSH!T
14 posted on 09/15/2007 4:31:13 PM PDT by Big Guy and Rusty 99 ("A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one" - Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
The Headline should really read:
ALAN GREENSPAN HAS GONE SENILE, RANTS ILLOGICAL BULLSH!T
15 posted on 09/15/2007 4:31:17 PM PDT by Big Guy and Rusty 99 ("A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one" - Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Absolutely ! He used to have gravitas and credibility ...


16 posted on 09/15/2007 4:32:10 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Killing two birds with one stone, is not a bad strategy.  He should know this better.

 

17 posted on 09/15/2007 4:32:31 PM PDT by OneHun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zman516

Exactly. Whenever somebody tells me that it’s all about oil, I answer “It goddam better be.” Our soldiers are over there defending our civilization, which runs on oil.


18 posted on 09/15/2007 4:32:53 PM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I wouldn’t blame her....Greenspan is not really a conservative, just appointed by them.


19 posted on 09/15/2007 4:33:10 PM PDT by wardaddy (WideAwakes is right now in full meltdown.....the horror.....sniff sniff...ya'll please don't come ba)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
The Headline should really read:
BIG GUY AND RUSTY 99 HAS GONE SENILE, DOUBLE POSTS IN THREAD
20 posted on 09/15/2007 4:33:31 PM PDT by Big Guy and Rusty 99 ("A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one" - Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Did he say that like it’s a bad thing? Not that that was the only reason. I would like everyone willing to live without oil, to begin doing it now. So the rest of us can live comfortably on what we produce domestically. GO!


21 posted on 09/15/2007 4:34:04 PM PDT by Kay Syrah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods

Oil was a factor in the war but not in the way that Greenspan implies. With the sanctions lifted, SH would have had a large revenue stream to pursue terrorism and weapons. SH would have been happy to sell oil to finance his covert war against us. Oil is obviously a vital commodity. But SH wanted to sell oil to the highest bidder. He would not have withheld oil except in a time of war or as part of OPEC supply manipulation.


22 posted on 09/15/2007 4:34:40 PM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Big Guy and Rusty 99

His lovely (gag) wife, andrea, must have been a co-author.


23 posted on 09/15/2007 4:34:48 PM PDT by Laverne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

He is married to ugly MSDNC lib Andrea Mitchell. It is impossible for him to do anything but criticize Republicans. He is a “Republican” in the same way David Gergen and William Cohen are.


24 posted on 09/15/2007 4:36:24 PM PDT by Rosemont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Two points.

1 - Well Greenspan is not as smart as he is credited with then. Even a child could see we haven’t gained much oil from the war in Iraq. Where is this oil we supposedly stole?

2- Even if it was about oil which it is not - so what? Why is that a bad thing anyway? If a country or group of countries threatened to shut off the flow of oil any American President including dems would go to war to keep the country and world from depression.

25 posted on 09/15/2007 4:36:42 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: businessprofessor

Yes, the oil factor was and is indirect as far as the USA is concerned. We have better suppliers such as Venezuela and Mexico, both stable and dependable as the Red Sox.


26 posted on 09/15/2007 4:38:25 PM PDT by RightWhale (Snow above 2000')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Laverne
Noticed one day about a month ago that the make-up ain’t gettin it done any more. Man that is one seedy woman.
27 posted on 09/15/2007 4:40:23 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Remember Mustang 22 and her heroes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

do you suppose she was the co-author? the exerpts that have been published sound exactly like her words.


28 posted on 09/15/2007 4:40:30 PM PDT by elpadre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laverne

BINGO!


29 posted on 09/15/2007 4:41:10 PM PDT by A. Morgan (Fred Thompsonís solid, he does not waffle. Fred 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
The Dems have co-opted this old coot for their strategy against the War on Terror. (Yes, that would make him a traitor, if true.) I cannot believe that the publication of this PW memoir was not timed to sabotage the war in Iraq by claiming it is a "war for oil," right after the long-anticipated Petraeus report.

By the way, the usual Commie mirage of a U.S. "war for oil" (they used that line about Vietnam, too) is a claim that we intend to gain an oil supply by simply seizing another country's oil fields and keeping them for ourselves. Okay, considering who controls most of the oil, I might consider it. But I don't write the policies here.

The reality is that a "war for oil" in this case is to ensure that the lion's share of known oil reserves is available for sale in the world market—rather than being seized or destroyed by ideological kooks like Saddam or al Qaeda. Anyone who thinks that kind of "war for oil" is somehow bad is not an adult.

Gosh, d'ya think the MSM outlets will spend a few weeks claiming Greenspan said the President wanted to steal Iraq's oil fields and keep them?

Not that I think Greenspan was likely consulted about war aims.

30 posted on 09/15/2007 4:41:39 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elizabetty
Then when will we be claiming it?

Bingo! These people drive me nuts.


Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

31 posted on 09/15/2007 4:42:51 PM PDT by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: John123
We will soon see whether Greenspan was quoted accurately or fairly.
32 posted on 09/15/2007 4:44:16 PM PDT by Christopher Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
"Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East."

That means it was "largely" about Saddam's potential aggression on regional oil supplies, not "our" aggression to capture or control oil.

The carefully spoken Greenspan is making misleading statements to sell a book..., and Time is playing right along to prop up Democrats.

33 posted on 09/15/2007 4:44:17 PM PDT by elfman2 ("As goes Fallujah, so goes central Iraq and so goes the entire country" -Col Coleman, USMC ,4/2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

If the war in Iraq as really all about oil, then why don’t we have all of it in the whole world right now?

Why are we wasting so much time on Iraqi Civilian’s needs, when we should be setting up a perimiter around all of Iraq’s oil assests, and shooting anyone who comes near them.

Why did we not tell Kuwait to pick a governor, and we would add a star? Same with Saudi Arabia....we had enough troops in thier country to take it over several times.

One of our biggest oil importers is Canada. Why don’t we just take over Canuckistan, dig up Quebec to ship home to France, and take all of thier oil too?? Cancuckistan would make an excellent place to launch our conquest of Russia next, since they are now one of the biggest oil producers in the World.

Mr. Andrea Mitchell is just wrong on this one...


34 posted on 09/15/2007 4:48:04 PM PDT by Bean Counter (Stout Hearts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Alan, if you can’t STFU then please die...


35 posted on 09/15/2007 4:48:43 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods

Precisely! Would it be preferable that the oil resources of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, et cetera, be controlled by Islamofascistic terrorists? What an exquisitely powerful weapon of extortion that would be.


36 posted on 09/15/2007 4:48:46 PM PDT by Elsiejay (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Greenspan is a senile old has been and Andrea is pulling the strings.
37 posted on 09/15/2007 4:48:53 PM PDT by boomop1 (there you go again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Anybody with half a brain knows the global Oil supplies is the life blood of the US economy and PART of going to war with Saddam was to keep those supplies from being used against us.

Pretend for a moment, we didn't invade and now Saddam had nukes.

Saudi Arabia and all the Persian gulf oil kingdoms would be at his mercy. Then that would be the reason to go to war.

The word preemptive comes to mind

38 posted on 09/15/2007 4:49:05 PM PDT by Popman (Nothing + Time + Chance = The Universe ---------------------Bridge in Brooklyn for sale - Cheap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says

Considering how the socialists have been whining about the rising costs of oil, that should be a good thing then, shouldn't it?

39 posted on 09/15/2007 4:49:44 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (I could be Agent "HT")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

You’ve been reading too much of Mearsheimer’s Israel lobby nonsense. Israel attacked Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facilities 20 years ago, without even notifying the US. They do whatever they want, they have an extremly powerful military. Saddam may have been funding bombers, but so is every other Arab country in the world. By the way, Israel knew most of the funding for Hamas and Hizbolla is from Iran, not Iraq.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39051

Also, why do we need Iraq’s oil? Bush basically french kisses King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when he visits. If our oil supply was in danger, we should have started drilling in ANWR.


40 posted on 09/15/2007 5:01:27 PM PDT by camerakid400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
That is probably the final nail. Bush is toast as far as history is concerned. I think this is total BS and I do not know why A.G. said it unless he was forced out. But, libs write history and will refer to this. The only way he can recover is if he fails. That is if some Arab explodes an A bomb in a western city. Otherwise he is just another Harding. We will have to run clear of him in 2008.
41 posted on 09/15/2007 5:05:45 PM PDT by bilhosty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camerakid400
If our oil supply was in danger, we should have started drilling in ANWR.

Of course we should have started drilling in ANWR, but the Traitorcrats, and a few RINO's have made it illegal!

42 posted on 09/15/2007 5:09:49 PM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (IF TREASON IS THE QUESTION, THEN MOVEON.ORG IS THE ANSWER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: camerakid400
You’ve been reading too much of Mearsheimer’s Israel lobby nonsense.

Never heard of it. I think you're misunderstanding me...I wasn't being critical; I think that among other reasons, eliminating his support of terrorism in the region was a perfectly legitimate casus belli.

The two are somewhat related anyway, at least to the extent that they occur in the same region.

And while it's true that other countries in the region have and continue to facilitate anti-Israel terrorism, Saddam was fairly brazen about it by comparison.

And, yes, Israel could have chosen to strike, but I think we were discouraging them from doing so, because it would complicate the peace negotiation efforts we were involved in.

As far as Iraqi oil goes, it was only important in an indirect way, since it was largely a French concern, as far as I know.

43 posted on 09/15/2007 5:11:10 PM PDT by B Knotts (Tancredo '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Look, Saddam was a threat in the Middle East. He was funding the death of Jews, he was not a good influence upon his neighbors, he continued to look for ways to get WMDs and he was breaking the rules he agreed to with the U.N. when the USA kicked his sorry ass in the FIRST Gulf War.

Additionally, he was sitting on a huge store of oil.

Who gives a damn about the reasons now?

The fact is, 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq are free now, and if allowed to remain free, they will become partners in the Middle East WITH America--government and business.

All this pissing and moaning about oil is just for the whiners on the left.

44 posted on 09/15/2007 5:12:25 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat ((I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Thats why the Iraq-for-oil argument has not convinced me.

Seriously folks, if the US govt. knew that our oil supply was in danger, we would have been scrambling to drill in as many places as possible [the dems would concede ANWR for national security reasons] and/or strike deals with other countries, etc. Hitlery and John Kerry were just has hawkish about Iraq as Bush was, in 2003.


45 posted on 09/15/2007 5:17:28 PM PDT by camerakid400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I guess at his age the only way he can entertain Andrea Mitchell at night is to talk against President Bush...


46 posted on 09/15/2007 5:19:48 PM PDT by citizencon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Jim Baker said something like this once about the first gulf war, once. He learned never to say this again, publicly.

47 posted on 09/15/2007 5:24:59 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The only good Mullah is a dead Mullah. The only good Mosque is the one that used to be there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

See if the libs refuse to take the oil.


48 posted on 09/15/2007 5:28:24 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Greenspan is the most overrated mumble mouth on the planet.

This idiot says that the Clinton economic team always did what was in the best interests of the country as compared to the “Bush” people... A lying RAT shill.


49 posted on 09/15/2007 5:45:26 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
This old back stabbing doofus is a fool. He had the financial guns in this country for years and could have corrected and/or addressed the things we all know need to be addressed. He lorded over one "over exuberant' crash after another. Oh, by the way, where the hell are all the oil contracts we are supposedly benefiting from? Last I heard, I thought the Chinese had the upper hand.

Nam Vet

50 posted on 09/15/2007 5:48:01 PM PDT by Nam Vet (Timely reporting from Attila's right flank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-120 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson