Our old financial wizard is getting into the Iraq war it seems. Alan Greenspan is writing that Iraq was all about oil:
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.
Yes, he posed a threat to oil supplies. He posed a thread to the world community with his WMD’s. He posed a threat to the world community with his support of terrorists along with the fact that he disobeyed the world community over and over and over again after signing a cease fire. He posed a threat many ways which all added up to one conclusion, he must be removed. Bill Clinton understood it, as did Bush. But Bush did something about it rather then lob a few missiles.
We invaded for all the reasons above, which was the only just outcome in a post 9/11 world.
Oil was one of them, and it most definitely is something worth fighting for. Not to enrich our nation but to ensure that the worlds oil supply is run smoothly. It has always been US policy to make certain aggressor nations would never be allowed to interfere with oil supplies. Hell, Jimmy Carter, that man of limited brain power, understood this and created the US Rapid Deployment Force to protect the worlds oil supply. The Carter Doctrine of 1980 declared that the United States would not allow Persian Gulf oil supplies to be held hostage by crazed tyrants.
We conducted retaliatory strikes against Iranian oil platforms in the 1980’s when they attacked oil shipments in the gulf. Why would we do that if we did not understand the importance of keeping the Strait open?
We do all this to ensure ALL nations can receive oil. A tyrant must not be allowed to close the Strait of Hormuz and in so doing holding the world hostage.
But in the end Oil was just ONE reason we invaded. The writer of the above article can ignore all the other reasons and pretend it was all to enrich certain people, a favorite conspiracy theory from the kooks on the left, but in the end history will recognize that invading Iraq was a just and noble cause which took a unstable murderer off the world stage and gave Democracy to a nation smack dab in the middle of most of our enemies.
See author page
Of course oil is a huge factor in the war, but the Middle East’s second biggest export (TERRORISM) had a heckuvalot to do with it too! Oil brings trillions of dollars to the US, and we cannot LIVE without it, but Middle Eastern terrorism done in the name of Saddam’s Iraq has cost the US trillions as well (see also the flattening of America’s 2 most important financial zip codes into rubble, the ensuing recession it caused, and millions of Americans who lost their jobs as a result of the recession.
Middle East gives us trillions in money
Middle East takes trillions in money
I submit that it’s even more important to prevent the LOSS of trillions via terror attacks as that involves American lives as well.
SO,
we use diplomacy to get allies to fight AQ
we use economic pressure to turn AQ supporting nations into allies (Pakistan and Saudi have killed/captured more AQ than almost any other allies save Iraqi govt and Afghan govt).
we use intel to find the enemy
we use police and law enforcement whenever possible
but sometimes…it takes an army
http://americandaily.com/article/14492
Like all things, Greenspan forgot about this:
“It has always been US policy to make certain aggressor nations would never be allowed to interfere with oil supplies.”
Nicely said.
(If it was only about oil as Greenspan suggests, then how come our gasoline prices are hovering around $3 a gallon? I’d like the old boy try to explain this.)
Like the Times online article implies, the best way to plug a book is to attack President Bush. Greenspan should just enjoy his money and keep to himself — this book is just another in a long line of phonies who want to aggrandize themselves over the MSM fabricated ‘unpopular’ war. Like Curt says, do we really want a tyrant like Saddam in charge of large oil reserves, who in a post 9/11 world could seek terror alliances in order to get back at America and the free world? It would have been treasonous to leave him be, considering that the Oil for Food scandal showed he was hoping to redevelop his weapons systems. A scandal uncovered ‘after’ we invaded.
If anyone should worry about exploitation, it should be the shameless string of wannabes who are more than willing to tweak the ears of the emotional left. Shame on you Mr. Greenspan.
Isn’t it funny to watch the old timers who plodded along for years doing so so in a job and when they get replaced the new guy does a better job and the economy take off? They all go crazy, grab a pen and start blaming everyone else for the piss poor job they did.
How can Greenspan-married to Andrea Mitchell-NOT write an anti-Admin tell all?
Greenspan says he was taken out of context and did not mean to imply that the administration’s motive was about oil, just that removing Saddam was an important positive for the world’s oil supply.
from the american thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/greenspan_taken_out_of_context.html
What Rich said.
I saw Matt Lauer interview him on the Today Show (he also appeared on 60 Minutes- working the circuit), and Greenspan clarified his statement. Matt Lauer came back to the question, and Greenspan added that he thinks if Saddam were still in power, instead of something like $80 a barrel, we’d be paying $130 a barrel.
Also, Newsbusters.