February 11, 2009 4:13 PM

Greenspan Backtracks On Iraq War Oil Claim

By
Keach Hagey
(CBS)  The Skinny is Keach Hagey's take on the top news of the day and the best of the Internet.


There's not much in government to cheer Alan Greenspan these days.

The former Fed chief may think Hillary Clinton is "very smart" and that President Bush went to war for oil, as he told CBS News' 60 Minutes last night, but he's not any more thrilled with the Democratic Party than the Republicans, he told the Wall Street Journal.

The Goldwater-loving libertarian had nice things to say about the centrist Clinton administration's fiscal politices, but said "the next administration may have the Clinton administration name but the Democratic party ... has moved ... very significantly in the wrong direction," referring to the Democratic party's populist bent, particularly its skepticism of free trade, the Journal reported.

He also (cheerily) put the current odds of the U.S. economy slipping into a recession at better than one in three.

The two other newspapers benefiting from Greenspan's memoir-hawking rounds took away a slightly different messages from their interviews.

The Washington Post focused on the charge in Greenspan's book that "the Iraq war is largely about oil."

The fiscal guru backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "was not the administration's motive," it should have been.

He said than when he made the argument that ousting Saddam Hussein was "essential" because of the threat he posed to U.S. oil interests in the region, White House officials told him "Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil."

The New York Times zeroed in on the lifelong Republican's unhappiness with the Bush administration's lack of fiscal discipline.

"I'm just very disappointed," he told the Times "glumly" from his living room. "Smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes, less regulation - they had all the resources to do it, they had the knowledge to do it, they had the majorities to do it. And they didn't."

U.S. Ambassador To Iraq Warns Of Refugee Crisis

For a long time, the Bush administration hasn't wanted to talk about the growing Iraqi refugee crisis, either, but today the Washington Post reports that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq has made bleak predictions that are forcing debate.

In a bluntly worded State Department cable titled "Iraqi Refugee Processing: Can We Speed It Up?" Ambassador Ryan Crocker warned that it may take the U.S. government as long as two years to process and admit the nearly 10,000 Iraqi refugees referred by the United Nations for resettlement in the United States, because of bureaucratic bottlenecks.

He claimed the Department of Homeland Security had only a handful of officers in Jordan to vet the refugees. The Bush administration disputed several of his claims.

About 2 million Iraqis are displaced inside Iraq, and an estimated 2.2 million more have fled to Syria, Jordan and other neighboring countries, according to the U.N. But with 60,000 Iraqis fleeing their homes each month, Jordan has closed its borders to Iraqis earlier this year, and Syria announced yesterday that it will begin requiring visas for Iraqis at the end of Ramadan next month.

The U.S. is blaming the U.N. for the delays, and vice versa. Senator Ted Kennedy is expected to proposed legislation next week to expand visas and resettlement programs for Iraqis. "While we can't solve the problem alone," he said, "the least we can do is our part to allow those at risk to resettle here." Which sounded a little like: since that whole bringing-our-democracy-to-Iraqis thing didn't really work out, let's try bringing Iraqis to our democracy.

Good Fences Make Empty Coffers

The immigration debate is revving up again in Congress, and with it cries for more money to build walls along the Mexican border. Anyone in favor of solving to immigration problem with a border wall ought to read A NOTE TO READERS: The Skinny is available via e-mail. Click here and follow the directions to register to receive it in your inbox each weekday morning.

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 71 Comments
by Joe posey September 18, 2007 10:38 PM EDT
weapons of mass destruction huh? and it wasnt oil, nor was it to crush some crush some terroist group!!Mr. president? get our kids out from the hell over there!!!
Reply to this comment
by thetruth073 September 18, 2007 3:19 PM EDT
VOTE FOR RON PAUL A REAL AMERICAN
If You Google Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom
Meet Ron Paul: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/ronpaul.htm

DEPLETED URANIUM ALERT!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/DU.htm

Then ''MAKE SURE'' your vote is counted!
http://www.votersunite.org/

HOW TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT
Includes 6 part videos: ''The Case for Impeachment''
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/impeach_pres.htm

Veteran''s and Family Members exposed to DU Go Here: http://www.naav.com/

Here is who controls America Learn What you never were supposed too about the bankers:
Secrets of The Federal Reserve: It is a Corporation!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

EVERYTHING including the truth about 9/11 Check it Out! http://www.apfn.org/apfn/sitemap.htm
Reply to this comment
by thetruth073 September 18, 2007 3:05 PM EDT
Isn''t a real shame what this country has come too. All political leaders and special interest groups and lobbyist groups should be put on trial. The only way any of this will ever change is a REVOLUTION by the people of America. But the people have had there mind and sould degraded to such a level they just don''t care anymore, because they are overwhelmed paying there bill with the high interest rates from the bankers and high taxes which are only going to keep increasing the Federal Reserve and The Tax Act was a Fraud on the American People anyways. But hey who cares anymore? Honest Abe would be rolling in his grave. America needs to get a heart and mind back. Remember government should be afraid of the people not the other way around. If you care take a stand and do something! Stop being supressed by the government, media and corporations like we have been for the past 100 years. Actions speak louder than words.

http://www.apfn.org
http://thetruth07.110mb.com
Reply to this comment
by genefair September 18, 2007 1:42 PM EDT
I wonder what people''s attitude will be if we have another "1974 boycott", long gas lines, unemployment and a recession? I''ll be willing to bet they will then expect the government to get some oil !!
Reply to this comment
by taotxzen September 18, 2007 12:57 PM EDT
This is a gentlemen that is famous for selecting his words very carefully.

Very similar to Karl Rove who was famous for his almost photograpic memory suddenly failing to recall so many events in the Plame scandal.

Remarkable!
Reply to this comment
by pepperp1 September 18, 2007 12:14 PM EDT
Oil for Blood no other way to spin it. And Bush is disliked because he is an incompetent, arrongant, swaggering, probably criminal President, who has made amoral decision for political power with support from a minority of Americans and attacked, yes attacked in his rhetoric, policies, drunken spending the majority of Americans who are in the middle and to the left. He ruled for the Right and failed to represent 70 percent of America in doing so.


Do not delude your self America will never thank Bush for Invading Iraq and securing the flow of oil it has only delayed the withdrawal that will place our country back on a prosperous ethical footing they will call if for what it is Blood for oil and the beginning of the decline of America as a Super Power.


He will go down in histroy as a fail man and President.
Reply to this comment
by spooky671 September 18, 2007 7:44 AM EDT
Now to conclude. Was it necessary maybe, maybe not. But eventually we would have had to deal with him as a leader of a country or later if Iraq would have joined up with groups to make them and even greater threat. If anyone doubts this then they do not know history. Look at the history of the world for the last 2300 years. If someone has something and others need it then there is a war. At least if and when Iraq stabilizes there is a greater chance for negotiating what the world needs, Oil. If ya think gas prices are high now, imagine if Sadam joined with the other oil producing nations and decided to put a restricion on oil. This war does suck but so does every war that has ever occured. Our dependance is a black gold stranglehold but what are the options. Burn coal to make electricity to charge our cars, Use solar power to get trucks and trains across the US and deliver your nikes. Or how about making nuclear cars. The advatage I guess is you would never need a light cause we all would glow. If ya hate the war and complain that it is because of oil then live a day without your SUV and read about the history of the middle east.
Reply to this comment
by spooky671 September 18, 2007 7:21 AM EDT
People hate bush cause he did what needed to be done. The congress gave him the power, we elected him, and were all for him going after osama. Osama trained personal in iraq in the past and during the gulf war Sadam used wepons both chemical and biological. He agreed to a cease fire and that is why GHW bush didn''t go after him into Iraq long ago. Many supported him to do so and the response was that was not within the scope of the military action. When Sadam failed to comply with inspectors and was circulating (as told by one of his on red guard) rumors that he had WMD''s what do you do. Why did he do this to keep Iran at bay cause he was ticking them off by messing with oil markets. Do I also need to mention Sadam''s sons who were taking a more active role in the government and would one day replace their father. Or how about the special envoy''s that came to the US, and asked for help in obtaining their freedom. Sadam only was in power because he took over by force and finally was forced out. Is it wrong maybe but the Iraqi citiizens or gangs or tribes or whatever are helping with the ousting of the Taliban that is trying to take over everything or maybe they were already there and we helped people find a backbone and stand up for themselves and the future of Iraq. I don''t like that we are in a war but if someone wouldn''t have been there for us then the US would be a nation of colonies to this day and maybe slavery would still be legal but the slaves would be of many nations.
Reply to this comment
by spooky671 September 18, 2007 7:21 AM EDT
People hate bush cause he did what needed to be done. The congress gave him the power, we elected him, and were all for him going after osama. Osama trained personal in iraq in the past and during the gulf war Sadam used wepons both chemical and biological. He agreed to a cease fire and that is why GHW bush didn''t go after him into Iraq long ago. Many supported him to do so and the response was that was not within the scope of the military action. When Sadam failed to comply with inspectors and was circulating (as told by one of his on red guard) rumors that he had WMD''s what do you do. Why did he do this to keep Iran at bay cause he was ticking them off by messing with oil markets. Do I also need to mention Sadam''s sons who were taking a more active role in the government and would one day replace their father. Or how about the special envoy''s that came to the US, and asked for help in obtaining their freedom. Sadam only was in power because he took over by force and finally was forced out. Is it wrong maybe but the Iraqi citiizens or gangs or tribes or whatever are helping with the ousting of the Taliban that is trying to take over everything or maybe they were already there and we helped people find a backbone and stand up for themselves and the future of Iraq. I don''t like that we are in a war but if someone wouldn''t have been there for us then the US would be a nation of colonies to this day and maybe slavery would still be legal but the slaves would be of many nations.
Reply to this comment
by lastdance2 September 18, 2007 6:30 AM EDT
Regarding the post of : BobECBS

Greenspan is - Not Backtracking on anything ! !
Same old Republican (Nazi) Party B.S.

Prior to The War :
The Initial Reports given by - Bush - The CIA and The FBI
Were Purposely and Intentionally - Fabricated and were Fraudulent ! !

Fabricated Reports - Intentionally - Delivered to the American people
In order to- Falsely and Fraudulently - Advocate a War ! !

The FBI - The CIA - The Bush Administration - Exposed ! ! !
It was Simply - a Matter of Time - If not Greenspan - Then someone else.

The FBI does - Have a History of : Intimidation and Blackmail

The Evidence Speaks for it-Self ! ! !

Greenspan is - Not Backtracking on anything ! !
Same old Republican (Nazi) Party B.S.

Lastdance
Reply to this comment
See all 71 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook