Posted on 09/17/2007 8:28:47 AM PDT by listenhillary
By Bob Woodward Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 17, 2007; A03
Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.
"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive." Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil." Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, "I talked to everybody about that."
Greenspan said he had backed Hussein's ouster, either through war or covert action.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Greenspan praised former President Clinton and his attitude toward economic policies, saying, "either Clinton shared many of my views on the way the economic system was evolving and on what should be done, or he was the cleverest chameleon I'd ever encountered."
"Clinton was often criticized for inconsistency and for a tendency to take all sides in a debate, but that was never true about his economic policy," he wrote. "A consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth became a hallmark of his presidency."
Greenspan said Clinton and former President Nixon were "by far the smartest presidents I've worked with."
To deny that oil was a factor would be disingenuous- to claim it was the driving factor would be . . . . . . disingenuous. To claim we would never use oil as a factor would be suicidal.
And no where in the article does he talk about Supporting Hillary or the current Democratic Party.
That exchange would make me ask why they had to almost brain Bill Clinton to get the welfare reform act passed.
Bill had a fired up Republican controlled congress to deal with. That fact plus the continued boom from the Reagan tax cuts led to Bill Clinton looking like a economic genius. Then there were the dot-com venture capitalists that were throwing money at the stupidest, nonsensical business plans in existence.
When I ask anyone about which specific economic policies that Bill Clinton was responsible for, I don’t get an answer. My answer is that he balanced the budget by ripping apart our military.
So how smart was he again?
Indeed..HE would have done it for the oil...not referring to why Bush did it..The loony left did not bother to read.
Thanks E.
And the MSM made it sound as if he said the complete opposite.
Very late response. When I said Greenspan was right that the conflicts were about oil, it was not said from the leftist stupid position that we are evil because we wish to secure our oil supply.
The world economy could easily be manipulated by letting China, Russia or nuts with nukes decide how much oil will be available to the world market.
saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
The title got me excited (even though correct) I thought they meant Hussein Obama.
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.