Admin

 

September 2007
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Verse of the Day

The Newsroom

Powered By
widgetmate.com
Sponsored By
Digital Camera


Site Design By: SC Themes


Proud to be Americans





Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

Newspaper Rack

Categories

After Alan Greenspan wrote in his memoir that

“I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”

he seems to be feeling a bit guilty about what he said and feels a need to explain what he meant.

Quoting now from the actual WaPo interview he gave after the story broke we see a bit of squirming:

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.” …

…His main support for Hussein’s ouster, though, was economically motivated. “If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands,” Greenspan said, “our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. 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 disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel — far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week — and the loss of anything more would mean “chaos” to the global economy.

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

“No, no, no,” he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of “making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will.”

It seems Mr. Greenspan was engaging in a bit of projection.

Written by ~J~

Comments are closed.