Greenspan on Iraq

[Dee]

Fox news is reporting that with the release of Allan Greenspan's (former Federal Reserve chairman) new book, it comes to light that the invasion and occupation of Iraq, was about OIL, rather than the reasons given by Bush and company. I assume this is Greenspan's opinion, but, I'll wager, it is an educated one. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm What do you guys think?

[Almtnman]

The age difference between him and his wife makes me wonder if some of his decisions was the right ones.

[beemanbeme]

Well, Duh.   

[ms]

Greenspan is a liar we are over there because he stop taking are money for oil and the bankers won't have that bs.

[Almtnman]

let us see here...Bush and Cheney are oilmen,,,,most all their buddies are oilmen,,,and the rest of them are Israelis or defense contractors.....Naaaaahhhhhhh,,,,impossible,,,,it's all about fighting "the war on terror to make the world safe for the global economy"....Leastwise that's what they said.   

....TM7

maybe they did, maybe they didn't! 

[jh45gun]

It is my opinion that Greenspan is a senile old fart who has made comments in the past that did not pan out. At one time he was smart and knew is stuff now I do not know I think he has some issues.

[gypsyman]

Yep, probably right! I think this war was about several things. Terrorism and oil being the top 2. I remember a fist fight at a gas station back in 1974 because of the oil embargo.It took this country over 70 years to get where it's at using ALOT of foreign oil. And until we can wean ourselves off of it, probably another decade, we need it. Most of our oil comes from Canada and Venzawalia, and without Middleeast oil, price of grocery's would sky rocket. Be more than just a fist fight or 2 now days if oil got real tight.

[ironglow]

   I must agree with Beemanbeme...well Duh !

       What does your car/trucks run on ?..what is many of our homes heated with ?...what generates much of our electricity generated with ?..what are many of our products and medicines made from ?...
   
      What is the engine that drives much of the world's economies ?.....OIL-OIL-OIL..and more OIL..

   The free flow of oil is mandatory for every economy in the world..obviously the interruption of the free flow of the substance CAN cause war in itself !

   That doesn't negate the reasons given for invading Iraq...namely :

  1) Iraq shot at our airplanes over the no-fly zone .

  2) Iraq did not accede to listed UN demands .

  3) Iraq, standing accused of building nuclear weapons, REFUSED free access to international inspection teams .

      ....All clear violations of the surrender treaty that the Iraqis signed after the FIRST Gulf War...Saddam was a slow learner !

[magooch]

Not so fast; it seems old Al's statements were like everything, filtered through the liberal media.  In clarifying what he said about oil and the reason for our little disagreement with Saddam, he meant to say that our ability to access Middle East oil will be affected.  Nothing to argue about there.  Of course this clarification also comes through the media.  I guess we pick and choose what we want to believe.

If Al actually said that Clinton was the smartest President--he is entitled to his opinion, but that don't make it fact.  I believe he is confusing "glibness" with intelligence.  A better test of "smart" is what a person does.  On that score, Bubba did some of the dumbest things while in office of any President we've ever had.  And no one is, or ever will be a more prolific liar.

[ironglow]

   Keep in mind..Alan Greenspan is married to Andrea Mitchell..liberal news commentator (with NBC)..

   Perhaps "pillow talk" is in operation again..

[Dee]

   I must agree with Beemanbeme...well Duh !

       What does your car/trucks run on ?..what is many of our homes heated with ?...what generates much of our electricity generated with ?..what are many of our products and medicines made from ?...
   
      What is the engine that drives much of the world's economies ?.....OIL-OIL-OIL..and more OIL..

   The free flow of oil is mandatory for every economy in the world..obviously the interruption of the free flow of the substance CAN cause war in itself !

   That doesn't negate the reasons given for invading Iraq...namely :

  1) Iraq shot at our airplanes over the no-fly zone .

  2) Iraq did not accede to listed UN demands .

  3) Iraq, standing accused of building nuclear weapons, REFUSED free access to international inspection teams .

      ....All clear violations of the surrender treaty that the Iraqis signed after the FIRST Gulf War...Saddam was a slow learner !

All of these things you have stated here are true. However, many of the UN members HAVE nuclear weapons THEMSELVES, and most of the member countries like Iraq, are a dictatorship. Hmmmmmm  Iraq also did shoot at our planes over the no-fly zone, which also happened to be over THEIR country. So I suppose we are JUSTIFIED, in attacking a country that has quit doing business with us.
And I supposed we, UNLIKE IRAQ would be HAPPY, to have UN members come in and INSPECT OUR DEFENSE SYSTEMS. That's a good one. LOL! And it just so happens, that not only do we, the United States HAVE nuclear weapons, we are TO DATE, the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO ACTUALLY "USE" THESE WEAPONS AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTRY. Hmmmmmmmmmm
Of course I suppose we can continue to use the excuse for invading Iraq, is that they attacked Kuwait, whom was angle drilling on the Iraq border into Iraqi oil deposits. But Iraq didn't attack us did they? Vietnam didn't attack us either, and oh yes, Panama didn't attack us either did they? Somalia, didn't attack us either. Hmmmmmmm  I wonder who's next, that didn't attack us. We simply have the right to go around and straighten the rest of the world out? I suppose we must. Our government is certainly appearing to think that, and they also seem to have plenty of support here in the U.S. No wait that not right. The cowardly 70+% of America thinks we need to start minding our own business, and the 20% or so think it's great to PRE-EMPTIVELY STRIKE countries that have not attacked us.
Time could be better spent, planning a HUGE OPEN HOUSE for the United Nations to come over here and, WAIT! Their already over here. Anyway, we can have a HUGE OPEN HOUSE and let ALL THE UN MEMBERS "INSPECT OUR DEFENSE SYSTEMS". After all, that is what got us on Iraq, and by the way those UN sanctions Iraq ignored? Apparently you guys and Bush are the only ones it bothered. The UN CONDEMED OUR INVASION OF IRAQ, AND REFUSED TO HELP. Still haven't helped five years later. HOWEVER, they HAVE invited the PRESIDENT OF IRAN to be a guest speaker before the UN. You don't agree with me I know, and as I said most of what you say is true, HOWEVER, everything I have just said is true also. Like it or not.

[jh45gun]

THE UN s-u-c-k-s I cannot say it any plainer. 

[Dee]

THE UN s-u-c-k-s I cannot say it any plainer. 

I could not agree more about the UN. But so does OUR forigien policy on "PRE-EMPTIVE" strikes against other countries. ROME HAD THE SAME POLICY.

[ncsurveyor]

From the washington post:

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. "I wasn't arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.

GREENSPAN STARTED IT!

Anyway, looks a little different in this light.

Greenspan seems like the type of guy that figures finding a cure for cancer is not about saving lives, its about offsetting the horrendous medical costs.