I commented yesterday that Greenspan’s line about the Iraq war being for oil was probably taken out of context. I also said the only thing we knew for sure about the book is that it would be spun…
I misunderestimated the media. It was overspun. To the point that Greenspan wasn’t talking about Bush’s motives at all..
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was “essential” to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published on Monday.
Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
It should be noted that with all the reasons listed for going to war Bush did not use Greenspan as one of his arguments. Make no mistake – Greenspan has “street cred” for days. Having Greenspan on his side would have helped Bush, but Bush never mentioned this before.
Rather than Greenspan being a closet moonbat, he was actually more hawkish than Bush, finding yet another reason to overthrow Saddam. — Of course, other than the fact Greenspan was talking about HIS ideas and not Bush’s, I predicted all this yesterday.