Greenspan: Iraq war for oil, deficit spending bad

[Julian Delphiki]

Alan Greenspan Admits Iraq War was Really for Oil

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has shocked the White House by saying the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," Greenspan says in his long-awaited memoir, as cited by Sunday Times.

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, Sunday Times stresses.

The articles claims that the White House has been "shaken" by Greenspan's declaration.

Greenspan, 81, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, also delivers a stinging critique of President George W Bush's economic policies.

"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote.

Bush took office in 2001, the last time the government produced a budget surplus. Every year after that, the government has been in the red. In 2004, the deficit swelled to a record USD 413 B.

"The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

"The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" is scheduled for release Monday.

Click here to receive realtime news about this topic in the future.

Greenspan must be hippie commie democrat ! And what makes him think he knows anything about economy .

 

[crabapple]

hear hear, good job Greenspan

 

[raen]

Well at least one sees it, all rest of the world knows it.

 

[bhsup]

Right, because the head of the Federal Reserve was in the meetings with the National Security Council and had intimate first hand knowledge of the "real" reason for war.

Right.

 

[RedWolf]

Right, because the head of the Federal Reserve was in the meetings with the National Security Council and had intimate first hand knowledge of the "real" reason for war.

Right.

I don't think anybody;s saying that... But whenever anybody claims the war was about oil we're called left wing idiots who know nothing about the world economic situation. We weren't just called wrong... but told instead that the idea is preposterous because it makes no economic sense.

Well here is somebody who knows more about the economy then any of us and he's making the same allegations.

 

[Whomp]

Greenspan's assessment of using veto power is spot on. George W. has not endeared many of us because of this tendency. I also have questions about his leadership in many cases. There's nothing wrong with believing the man didn't do a good job versus his republican predecessors. B.L.-- he's not my kind of republican.

 

[innonimatu]

And let the game of blame shifting start!

Oh, Greenspan has already started it...

 

[Leonel]

If it was for oil, why are petrol prices going up?!

That's pretty incompetent if you wage a war for oil and petrol prices still go up.

 

[skadistic]

If it was for oil, why are petrol prices going up?!

That's pretty incompetent if you wage a war for oil and petrol prices still go up.

You're not allowed to use logic like that. Just like how the Iraqi oil fields aren't being pumped out by American companies or how OPEC factors in.

 

[crabapple]

of course the oil prices go up, as long as the war is going on it increses the oil prices, you have to remmeber that the white house thought it would take a couple of months then it would be peace and you would have full controll of all oil, thereby lowering the prices. But that didnt happen..

 

[warpus]

If it was for oil, why are petrol prices going up?!

That's pretty incompetent if you wage a war for oil and petrol prices still go up.

Hey, just because you have a plan, it doesn't mean it's going to work

 

[RedWolf]

If it was for oil, why are petrol prices going up?!

That's pretty incompetent if you wage a war for oil and petrol prices still go up.

It's not about cheap oil.. it's about controlling the largest supply of the world's most valuable strategic resource well into the next 5 decades as the fossil fuel bad times begin. Without the overthrow of Saddam the US was set to lose that control to the European countries who had set up oil deals for the future post sanction period.

Besides - I doubt that the fools in the white house predicted the insurgency would still be raging 4 years after the invasion.

 

[RedWolf]

You're not allowed to use logic like that. Just like how the Iraqi oil fields aren't being pumped out by American companies or how OPEC factors in.

So Greenspan doesn't know what he's talking about? Not like he's an economist or anything... and a republican to boot.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote.

My thoughts as well.

 

[skadistic]

So Greenspan doesn't know what he's talking about? Not like he's an economist or anything... and a republican to boot.

Not like hes in the war room or the oval office when things out side of economy like war is being discussed.

SO what exactly does the economist know about war and the reasons to renew hostilities? Or are you saying that being a republican makes him a war expert?

 

[RedWolf]

Not like hes in the war room or the oval office when things out side of economy like war is being discussed.

SO what exactly does the economist know about war and the reasons to renew hostilities? Or are you saying that being a republican makes him a war expert?

I'm not debating his "inside" knowledge of the causes for war.

All I'm saying is that whenever someone mentions the war for oil concept your side laughs at them claiming it's absurd.. makes no economic sense, illogical. That is always your method of debate on this particular issue- instead of discussing the possibility you mock even the IDEA so as to dismiss it.

Yet here is a highly respected republican economist saying he believes it to be the case. So is he ECONOMICALLY wrong as well? If it makes no sense then why would he be stating that he believes it to be true?

Is he wrong... sure of course he is.. debate that all you want. But if even the idea is so absurd as to dismiss it outright (as you and others always do) then what about economics do you know that he does not? Do you know more about how the world economy works then he does?

 

[skadistic]

Greenspan ruined the economy. Ask most economists. Highly respected? Since when?

 

[RedWolf]

Greenspan ruined the economy. Ask most economists. Highly respected? Since when?

So you DO know more about economics then he does?

 

[luiz]

Greenspan is correct, it's pretty hard to deny that. Not only on what concerns the Iraq War, but also that Republicans are nowadays as bad, if not worse, than Democracts when it comes to spending.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess the question to ask oneself is: does he know more about the upper-level situation than we do? And, is he a nutbar who should be ignored?