NEW YORK, Sept. 17, 2007
Greenspan Backtracks On Iraq War Oil Claim
The Skinny: Former Fed Chief Now Says Oil Wasn't The Reason For U.S. Invasion.
-
Photo
Alan Greenspan, talking to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl. (CBS)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Greenspan On Housing Crisis
Part 1: Alan Greenspan speaks with Leslie Stahl about his tenure at the Federal Reserve and admits that he did not foresee warning signs of a sub prime mortgage meltdown.
-
Video
Greenspan On Past & Future
Alan Greenspan sits down with Leslie Stahl and reflects on the six presidents he worked with, and discusses the future of the U.S. economy and the crippled housing market.
-
Video
Greenspan On Mortgage Meltdown
Only On The Web: Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan speaks with Leslie Stahl about the crippled housing market and its effect on the U.S. economy.
-
Photo Essay
Greenspan-ing The Decades
Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, 79, retires after 18½ years as head of the central bank.
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
The paper reports that the "battered ribbon of carbon-steel wire-mesh finding" that divides much of San Diego from Mexico, which "helped inspire the Bush administration's plans for more than 700 miles of new fincing along the porous, 2,100-mile southwestern border," has seen much better days.
Illegal immigrants and drug runners have gashed the barrier repeatedly, sending maintenance costs projections skyrocketing to $8.3 million a mile by 2016.
"When people talk about fencing the border, it's amazing they don't have a concept about what it take to do it," said Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He called the idea of fencing off more of the border - already set in motion by last year's congressional approval of $1.2 billion to begin construction on the 700 miles of fencing -- "ludicrous" and a "waste of taxpayers' money."
The number of illegal immigrants nabbed at the border has declined during the past three years - from 1.17 million to 889,000 - as security has increased along the southwestern border, the paper reports. But in the San Diego sector, the numbers increased during that time by 20,000 apprehensions.
Illegal immigrants carry flexible ladders they can carry easily and throw over arched portions of the fence that need to be higher, according to Master Sgt. Michael Drake, spokesman for the California National Guard, who described the work to secure the border as a "bottomless pit."
"When there is a pot of gold on the (U.S.) side, they are gonna try to find it," he said. "We're not gonna solve it, and it's easy to have a sense of frustration."
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.
©MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from CBS Evening News: The Skinny
-
Video
U.S. Seeks Sanctions On Iran
-
Video
Iran's Nuclear Development
-
Video
iPod Oblivion?
- Latest in CBS Evening News: The Skinny
- Anatomy Of An Intentional Foreclosure
- Nevada Tree Killer Gets 5 Years In Prison
- Two Steps Forward, One Step Back In Iraq
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 73 CommentsGreenspan is no exception. He did love Billy though, between the two of them they floated the housing industry boom for a decade, increasing housing costs in America by something like 250%.
``I''m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil,'''' Greenspan wrote in a chapter titled ``The Long-Term Energy Squeeze.''''
jimfinster, (btw,it''s cold and rainy here today, perfect Oregon weather...)
Why is it so horrible that we went to war over the free flow of oil? Our country NEEDS the free flow of oil to function.
You make it sound as if we went to war over Twinkies or something. If the flow of oil to this country stopped, it would probably be the most horrible economic catastrophy in history. Oil is an important commodity to keep our engine running, it''s not some evil monster like cocaine or something.
...
They did the very opposite didn''t they Mr. Greenspan?
Ya out there?
The Bush administration will leave this country is complete financial collapse. The reps think we need to establish long term bases in the middle east. that is a pipedream!
We won''t have the ability to fund the National Guard, let alone this worldwide army they envision.
And you think that this is bad?? Wait tell dumbo invades Iran. It will be as bad as the Great Despression ever was.
You make it sound as if we went to war over Twinkies or something. If the flow of oil to this country stopped, it would probably be the most horrible economic catastrophy in history. Oil is an important commodity to keep our engine running, it''s not some evil monster like cocaine or something.
Posted by hawksprings
Actually, I was just quoting Greenspan. But do you really think it a good idea to invade another country to capture their natural resources, whatever it might be? Just think if Bush had taken all those billions spent on Iraq and spent it on alternate energy??
Exactly. Bush gives a different explanation for Iraq every day. He should just be honest for once and tell the truth: "We invaded Iraq because it has the second largest reserve of crude oil in the world."
Posted by rharrin1 at 11:52 AM : Sep 17, 2007
There was no lying...except for the lying you liberals started after the war began.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not a liberal. I know this will be difficult for you to compute in your black/white vision of the world.
Of course it was about the oil. Do you still think it was about WMD? Remind me again where those are :)
What an incredibly stupid statement! Don''t you read the newspapers, watch tv news or even bother to try to educate yourself? How can you make such a statement in view of all the information that is now available? I have always tried to gather as much information as possible before coming to any conclusion. Try it sometime..you might be suprised.
dnc are like john adams and want to give the jihadist their lunch money hoping they will leave us alone....
gop are like thomas jefferson and want to spend their lunch money on weapons and go kick the jihadists in their arses.....
What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad
Thomas Jefferson knew about fascist nazi islam..... he killed plenty of them....
In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli''''s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm
muslim justifies slavery and piracy%u2026
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?6bdec278-6a71-4436-bc4d-29d1c54b0ad7
Sigh ... go seek professional help.
You ARE joking I hope? Is it wrong for a heroin addict to steal or kill to support his habit?
In fact, it is worse doing it for oil: not only is it morally wrong, it also weakens the country politically, militarily, and deepens dependence on a substance that we will run out of. Worse yet, oil dependence is something we have the brains and means to stop, just not the leadership nor the willpower.
Explain yourselves please, or this headline looks like propaganda.
Explain yourselves please, or this headline looks like propaganda.
No, they''re not joking. It''s their mindset. We''ve managed to acquire so much oil from the middle east that we are playing $3.00 at the pump. Gee, with all that oil wealth that we''re taking, it''s no small wonder the Iraqis are having a hard time with their distribution benchmark. How can they distribute all to all three factions, when we''re taking it all?
so whats next america, no one should be paying their taxes to pay for this war..what they will put 300 million americans in jail....dont think so...
Here is something I would enjoy you Bush supporters to explain. I thought Syria and Iran were our enemies?? State sponsors of terror??
16/09/2007
(MENAFN) The Iraqi Minister of Oil announced that Iraq is seeking to increase its oil production by 3.5 million barrels per day (bpd) by the end of 2009, increasing to 6 million bpd within the next decade, IDP reported.
He also added that Iraq will supply Syria with 50 million cubic feet of liquefied gas daily and Iran with 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day via pipes which will be built during the next year.
Iraq is a member of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) and anticipates its oil production to grow during the next decade to reach 6 million barrels per day from the current 2.5 million.
~~~S.O.S.~~~MayDay***
~~~"Suicidal thoughts, up since Katrina, PTSD survey says........"
------- "Suicide rate among girls skyrockets 76%, says Centers for Disease Control & Prevention" -------
****
Please help me save young [ & old] lives, now NEEDLESSLY lost!
Help spread these [volunteer sites- NO $$$] planet-wide and express real
empathy!~~~
~~~~~SUICIDE VACCINE~~~~~[It works, which is the only point, Eh?!]
CaptainChurch.proboards57 (dot) com
s2.excoboard (dot) com/exco/index.php?boardid=24582
s2.excoboard (dot) com/exco/index.php?boardid=15311
b4.boards2go (dot)com/boards/board.cgi?user=ChurchCaptain
~~~On sites above: "A New fact about Jesus Christ" and "666 finally
explained"~~~
*
groups.google (dot) com/group/TeenAnswers
groups.yahoo (dot) com/group/BestTeenAnswers
groups.google (dot) com/group/answers-for-teens
[~~~All groups:::5 permanent monographs & no chat~~~
like, "Who are YOU?!?" , "The useless War of the Sexes" and "LOVE is
the Real Thing".]
Jim Sorrell [CaptainChurch]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is exactly right. There are other places in the world where military intervention would have made MUCH more sense from a humanitarian standpoint. But they did not have oil...
SHE SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH TREASON ALONG WITH THE KLINTOONS AND THE DNC,,,
Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno blocked investigators%u2019 efforts at the Justice Department,,,
More than 100 people connected to the fundraising scandal fled the country,,,
Many of the Chinagate donors were successfully prosecuted even though Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno blocked investigators%u2019 efforts at the Justice Department. More than 100 people connected to the fundraising scandal fled the country, however. Norman Hsu seems to be following their lead.
http://www.corruptionchronicles.com/2007/09/hillary_donor_flees_like_china.html
I know this is hard for you, but try to stay on topic. This story is not about the AG.
Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."
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."
Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction "because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something." While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."
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."
In the past you have criticized the Washington Post as "liberal garbage." Now you quote it? Unbelievable.
Regardless, the USA now has control of these oil fields and is building numerous permanent military bases in the country. You would have to be a total moron to not understand that oil was the major reason for the invasion.
You make it sound as if we went to war over Twinkies or something. If the flow of oil to this country stopped, it would probably be the most horrible economic catastrophy in history. Oil is an important commodity to keep our engine running, it''''s not some evil monster like cocaine or something. Posted by hawksprings at 11:37 AM : Sep 17, 2007
*****************************************
It IS monstrous to destroy other countries because they have something we want but have NO RIGHT to take...so the real question to all war supporters is:
How did OUR Oil---end up under THEIR sand?
~~~S.O.S.~~~MayDay***
~~~"Suicidal thoughts, up since Katrina, PTSD survey says........"
------- "Suicide rate among girls skyrockets 76%, says Centers for Disease Control & Prevention" -------
****
Please help me save young [ & old] lives, now NEEDLESSLY lost!
Help spread these [volunteer sites- NO $$$] planet-wide and express real
empathy!~~~
~~~~~SUICIDE VACCINE~~~~~[It works, which is the only point, Eh?!]
CaptainChurch.proboards57 (dot) com
s2.excoboard (dot) com/exco/index.php?boardid=24582
s2.excoboard (dot) com/exco/index.php?boardid=15311
b4.boards2go (dot)com/boards/board.cgi?user=ChurchCaptain
~~~On sites above: "A New fact about Jesus Christ" and "666 finally
explained"~~~
*
groups.google (dot) com/group/TeenAnswers
groups.yahoo (dot) com/group/BestTeenAnswers
groups.google (dot) com/group/answers-for-teens
[~~~All groups:::5 permanent monographs & no chat~~~
like, "Who are YOU?!?" , "The useless War of the Sexes" and "LOVE is
the Real Thing".]
Jim Sorrell [CaptainChurch]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alan Greedscam to U.S. public:
"Don''t blame me for destroying your economy in order to enrich myself, and my private banker co-pirates, and to prop up the Bush-puppet!"
"I''m not saying that I am not responsible for it. I''m just saying DON''T BLAME ME- (suckers)!!!"
ummmm greenspam,,, you were suppose to just tinker with interest rates,,, not give advice on wars,,, lol
no wonder he was klintoons beyotch boy and tried to get him to attack iraq as well,,,
btw greenspam,,, it was the gop contract with america that balanced the budget,,, not klintoon,,,
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.
"I was not saying that that''s the administration''s motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I''m just saying that if somebody asked me, ''Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?'' I would say it was essential."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html
Greenspan said he had backed Hussein''s ouster, either through war or covert action. "I wasn''t arguing for war per se," he said. But "to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B" -- an alternative to war.
Greenspan''s reference in "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" to what he calls the "politically inconvenient" fact that the war was "largely about oil" was first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday and has proved controversial.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates took issue with Greenspan on ABC''s "This Week" yesterday. "I wasn''t here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war," Gates said. But, he added, "I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don''t believe it''s true."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html
The reality is that the world%u2019s total oil output has already begun its precipitous drop (there is only so much crude left in the ground), yet global demand continues on its steady climb. This is fueled by unprecedented affluence and economic expansion in China & India. Limited carbon supply will only continue to pit the world%u2019s economies against one another. This unavoidable conflict between the world%u2019s economic superpowers will only become more aggravated and contentious as supplies dwindle over the coming years. Unfortunately, we chose war over continuing a successful Iraq containment strategy and instead focusing effort on reducing national debt and curbing our appetite for foreign oil.
Of course. How could we gain control of Iraq and the oil without "taking out" Saddam? Duh.
teflonnads,
Nice wrap-up!
A very good post! As a geologist, I have followed Peak Oil since the 1980''s. This is essentially the reason for the Iraq invasion, plus the activities of many other countries in recent years. China for one has been quietly locking up oil supplies.
The actions of Bush are rational from a Peak Oil viewpoint. However, I for one wish Bush had spent all that money and effort on an alternate energy program for the USA.
Do you really think you''re the only person in the world capable of interpreting the lessons of history. I swear, some people are so dense!
ttinsly,
Re: "I''m officially disconnecting from politics in every way and manner except for my voting."
I am sorry to see you go, but I wish you well. I have enjoyed your insights and contributions to the discussion.
Take care!!!
As for the war being for oil, if that''s the case, the government isn''t at fault: THE PEOPLE ARE. Who do you think USES all that oil?!?!?!? We can protest all we want, but until we''re truly willing to change our ways, we have no right to complain about it. I once saw two protesters carrying a "No Blood for Oil" placard leave from the rally and get into a mid-1980''s Chevy Suburban! Yikes!!!
You''re right - Greenspan isn''t the "tool" of either Bush or Clinton.
I got a weird feeling watching him last night - it''s like he''s waiting for someone to ask him the right question, in exactly the right way, using exactly the right words.
If you read his testimony before Congress he doesn''t say that he agrees with Bush or that Bush is right - what he says is he can''t respond. There was no followup question to it: Is that because you feel that in your position you shouldn''t give an opinion or because you don''t'' want to.
It''s clear that he''s disappointed in Bush''s handling of the economy - it''s also clear that Bush didn''t give a *** about what anyone other than his inner circle''s opinion so he wasn''t going to listen to Greenspan anyway - but some in the GOP might have and might have been persuaded to not go along with Bush - though that''s doubtful too as they''ve all acted in concert together lock, stock and barrell.
Lumber is another example. Trees take hundreds of years to grow and when regions are left devoid of trees mud slides, erosion and a slew of other unwanted effects are seen.
If I were a lumber company owner I would push for growing hemp. It can do everything lumber can and then some. It is replenishable in six months. All that junk mail we get every day would not be so bad if I knew they were not ultimately desroying the only place humans have to live. Same with coal and oil!
Posted by rangerdahl
Yes and no. We hit Peak Oil here in the 1970''s, which means production peaked at that time due to available reserves. It has been decreasing every since, and will continue to do so. Peak Oil has also occurred in a number of other countries. And probably has occurred in terms of global supply.
Posted by azmka
Take a look at BP Oil. They are a BIG manufacturer of solar panels, and are also getting into wind power. They are preparing for life after oil, and will continue to be an energy company due to foresight and planning.
that''s very cool I hope the rest follow suit.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 73 Comments