Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

Republicans hate hearing "I told you so". They got fooled. They were part a gang of thieves and didn't even know it. They will have to pay, as ignorance is no exuse. They will have to go to jail for fraud. Almost half the country was in on this conspiracy.

Greenspan was on the Today show this morning and in not so many words said that his quote was taken out of context, just like a good little NWO stooge should. He is pro-war, but his take is that it was about stability of that oil producing region.

Peace

Originally posted by kacou
How can it be about oil when Iraq has not met yet the production and refineries of the crude since the war started?

The NeoCons thought the Iraqis would welcome the bombing and invading of their country with the throwing of roses, and would be the perfect climate and enviroment to get oil out of.


Of course, the Iraqis actually greeted the invasion with molotovs, AK-K7's, RPGs, and roadside bombs, slightly unsettling the oil snatcher's ideal tranquility.

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security

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.

From the Washington Post, Bob Woodward of watergate fame...

DocMoreau

I wouldn't trust the book just yet. Greenspan had a ghost writer write the majority of the book.

The quote that the war was started because of oil is not correct. The exact quote that was said by Mr. Greenspan was it would be "securing the worlds oil supply if Saddam was removed."

Thats a bit different than.. USA wants the oil so they went to war.

NOOOOO Really? WOW, why does it take these people so long to realize the obvious. That's one less person with Bush. Poor Bush, all alone in the cold.

What gave this away? The oil?

I think it had to do with a number of things.

Religion
Oil
Defiance
The american attitude. for ex: "I can do whatever i want"

Seems to me Iraq was invaded to remove SH as he was going to switch from USD to Eurodollar as foreign currency payment. I speculate resrictions on Iraq were soon to be eased or dropped by the UN or SH was going to sell & move oil to other nations under the table to be paid in Eurodollars?

This would be the start of mid-eastern Oil producing states campaign to switch, which could have disastrous results on the USD value. I also think Oil control was and is primary in Bush's actions, and that of US Oil refiners and probably all other influential US Big Business execs who's companies have something to lose should the flow of oil slow into the US.

Dallas

Greg Pallast (leading investigative journalist, bbc), author of "Armed Madhouse" says it was about oil as well, only it was to take the oil OFF of the market in order to get oil prices from $20 a barrel up to or above where it is now $80 per barrel. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!! He goes on to talk about how it really has benifitted the Saudi's the most as their economy has now recovered....By the way, that kid that was recently tasered in Florida was holding up this same book. It's a great read!

Oops, I spelled his name wrong. it's Palast, incase you want to go to his website and need the proper spelling to search for it...

Switching away from the green back is not the reason why SH was removed.. hell, the USA will be using the euro as international buisness money in the next couple of years.. and actually have already done so in some cases.

Originally posted by Regensturm
The NeoCons thought the Iraqis would welcome the bombing and invading of their country with the throwing of roses, and would be the perfect climate and enviroment to get oil out of.


Of course, the Iraqis actually greeted the invasion with molotovs, AK-K7's, RPGs, and roadside bombs, slightly unsettling the oil snatcher's ideal tranquility.

And one thing that seemed to escape the "planners" of this fiasco is that this has all happened before, and way before Vietnam. But one feature of the "planners" is that they only studied those works (and hired those individuals) that reinforced their beliefs, hence the current situation.

One thing I like to bring up in this context that is seldom mentioned is what the US government could have been concentrating on had their been no Iraq war. Besides the obvious (finishing the Afghanistan engagement, having something resembling domestic policy at all) perhaps some attention could have been given to Russia's growing influence on Europe's energy supplies, and expanding military might. Cold War II, with a whole cast of new characters (the new economic powers of China, India, various non-aligned terrorist groups, etc) seems to be just about upon us, IMO.