Greenspan blasts Bush, says Iraq invasion was for oil

[zengrifter]

September 16, 2007

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war
was really for oil

Graham Paterson

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

HERE - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2461214.ece

[aslan]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

September 16, 2007

Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war
was really for oil

Graham Paterson

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

HERE - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2461214.ece

Actually, Greenspan said (according to the article above), “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” "Largely about oil" and "prime motive being war" are two different things to me. Everyone knows that oil was a major pre-war concern and a major bennie of a successful campaign. That doesn't make it the "prime" motive. On the other hand, I'm not saying that is wasn't. I just want to point out the spin put on Greenspan's words.

The right spin sells books and papers! Always look for a money motive in the media.

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

Originally Posted by aslan

Actually, Greenspan said (according to the article above), “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” "Largely about oil" and "prime motive being war" are two different things to me. Everyone knows that oil was a major pre-war concern and a major bennie of a successful campaign. That doesn't make it the "prime" motive. On the other hand, I'm not saying that is wasn't. I just want to point out the spin put on Greenspan's words.

The right spin sells books and papers! Always look for a money motive in the media.

He's just playing to his base now that he knows his side had lost the battle of public opinion.

Remember: You can' have bastards like George W. Bush without enablers like Alan Greenspan. These people are the "parents" of the morally depraved crap heads running the White House.

Heck where was Greenspan in 2004 when Bush was re-elected.. Whoops i mean "re-appointed" president?

As far as I'm concerned it's too little, too late on Greenspan's part.

Ditto other enablers like Pat Buchanan, Bush 41 and the whole GOP.

"Bad parents" all of them.

And now they want to blame the liberals like myself while we clean up their stinking mess.

Derelicts all of them.

[creeping panther]

Oil, Israel, Dollar vs. Euro. "Preventative War", also practiced of late by Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

creeping panther

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by aslan

Everyone knows that oil was a major pre-war concern and a major bennie of a successful campaign. That doesn't make it the "prime" motive.

What else might have been the prime motive? zg

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by AnIrishmannot2brite

As far as I'm concerned it's too little, too late on Greenspan's part.

Greenspan was featured on 60-Mintutes this evening. Here's what LaRouche says about the failure of Greenspan. zg

-------------------

This article appears in the March 24, 2006 issue of
Executive Intelligence Review. A Relevant Chronology

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

March 14, 2006

An informed source told one of my associates, today, that the accumulation of international financial storms associated with the Iceland crisis of the world's so-called "carry trade," must be seen as a collapse of the Greenspan bubble," and thus viewed as a consequence of policies introduced in 1987 by now-retired U.S. Federal Reserve System Chairman Alan Greenspan. That source's observation is, of course, broadly correct, and does not differ essentially from the assessment of Greenspan's role which I had publicized widely during the recent decade.

Notably, during Spring of 1987 I warned of the high probability of an early October 1987 blow-out of the Wall Street market, which then occurred exactly as I had repeatedly warned. This October 1987 crisis erupted at the point Paul Volcker's term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve System was running out. Greenspan, the nominee to replace Volcker, intervened, saying, in effect: "Hold everything. I have a solution. Don't do anything until I come in." Greenspan's "remedy" was to flood the financial markets with Monopoly-style play-money, called "financial derivatives." It is the Greenspan "financial derivatives" bubble which I have described in my presentation of the "Triple Curve" imagery (Figures 1 and 2); it is that bubble which is now reaching the bursting-point.

Figure 1. LaRouche's Typical Collapse Function

Figure 2. The Collapse Reaches a Critical Point of Instability

Thus, Greenspan's policy replaced an October 1987 re-enactment of the 1929 stock-market crash, with a presently threatened hyperinflationary blow-out of the entire world's monetary-financial system. The informed source's conclusion was therefore correct.

...more - http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2006/...hronology.html

[AnIrishmannot2brite]

With all due respect Z/grift, do you really think that Lyndon LaRouche is a reliable source to quote?

We've got his mindless disciples roaming the streets of San Francisco bothering tourists, workers for money along with the dispensing of simplistic propaganda.

They remind me of the Moonies or the "Socialist Workers Party". Clueless peons without a grip.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by AnIrishmannot2brite

With all due respect Z/grift, do you really think that Lyndon LaRouche is a reliable source to quote?

We've got his mindless disciples roaming the streets of San Francisco bothering tourists, workers for money along with the dispensing of simplistic propaganda.

They remind me of the Moonies or the "Socialist Workers Party". Clueless peons without a grip.

LaRouche is a brilliant socialist/liberal economist with an incredible activist organization.

I do aGREE that its a bit cultish BUT LaRouche has been subjected to incredible attacks and disinformation - "LaRouche is antisemitic, a nazi", etc., which tends to temper some people's opinion of him.

I will never vote for LaRouche, however, because he wants to win the "war on drugs" and I'm a Libertarian in favor of legalization. zg

[aslan]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

What else might have been the prime motive? zg

Might...big word, zg. For example, it might be the motive that the Congress bought hook, line, and sinker...WMD. Might have been to finish his father's crusade against Sadaam. Might have been just because he could. Might have been to create a secure presidency. Might have been to create a war economy. Might have been because Sadaam had been thumbing his nose at the U.S. and U.N. for many years, even attacking our aircraft patroling the perimeter. Might have been a military move to secure the best real estate, geographically -speaking, in the Middle East for establishing U.S. air bases for strategic purposes in future wars that may have appeared likely or desireable to the military complex of the U.S./West. Remember, bases in Saudi Arabia have restricted use and the U.S. can easily be expelled, Turkey wouldn't let us use their territory in the campaign in Afganistan, and geographically Iraq seems to me the perfect launching pad for any future war anywhere in the entire Middle Eastern region. Might have been to take a stand against an unfriendly nation that supported/harbored terrorists. Might have been to establish a "front" that would act as a magnet to attract terrorists from all over the region to fight the U.S. and allies. Secondary motives might have been to liberate the Iraqi people, and to secure the oil fields for a friendly Iraq to ensure free flow to the U.S. The latter of course could be the prime motive, as the thread suggests. I wish I was a fly on the wall in the Oval Office so I could tell you for sure (lol), but I'm just as much in the dark as anyone else, but I always suspected right from the start that one of the main reasons was to set up a strategic base smack in the middle of the region for control purposes and possible future wars. Whether you put a good or a sinister face on such an action is up to you. Beauty and ugliness I suppose is in the eye of the beholder.

[shadroch]

Except that we had perfectly good bases in some of the former Soviet Republics,and we never intended to build permanent bases in Iraq,evidenced by the temporary constructs of the initial bases and the total lack of garrison troops sent in.