I find it amazing that Greenspan would venture outside the economic world and become a history professor and say the war was about oil. I don't think that should be considered much as he's certainly not a political expert. The war may be indirectly tied to it, but we didn't go to war for Iraqi oil, more to try to stabalize a region that's of vital economic interest to us.
Why not? Oil is a scarce resource and Economics is by definition to deal with the problem of scarcity. If he is talking about WMD or Saddam, then that's out of his reach.
i don't think greenspan has any more insight into the reasons Bush decided to invade Iraq than anyone who was in Bush's cabinet. This war was mostly ideological and based on a vision of trying to create a pro-american secular democracy that could spread democracy and change the dynamics of the middle east. Most people who really pay attention have understood this from the beginning.
It's a vital economic interest to us because of the oil...you can't separate the two...they are intertwined, silly to say it’s indirectly tied to it. If Iraq had no oil, what would be our reason to fear them; it’s the fact that they had the possibility to flourish without our support that caused them to be a threat. By the way rebuilding Iraq is pure gold….
I think it wasn't Bush's rationale exactly. I think Bush saw some messianic push for greater good. But I do think the voices whispering in his ear believed at least in part that it was about oil. But that being said I think their view of the world is so messed up that they are convinced what is good for them and their oil buddies is good for everyone else, but they believe the rest of us just don't understand enough to see it that way. That's why you have the article by Krugman about Bush's buddy Hunt making oil deals that directly hinder Iraqi democracy. It is no coincidence that Hunt who runs Hunt Oil and is on the board of Haliburton is also part of Bush Foreign Intelligence group which has access to top level intel. When it came down to it, Bush's buddy Hunt made the decision to make oil deals that hurt Iraqi unification. He chose oil over democracy in the middle east.
Are you implying that Greenspan is not competent to comment on anything other than fiscal policy -- though he worked with 4 presidents over 19 years?
Folx in Bush's Cabinet have been less than honest with the american people so their credibility is a little suspect. Moreso than Greenspan's So . .when it comes to insight .. I will take Greenspans over someone with a political/person interest and history of less than credible answers/explainations and misreading intel Rocket River
You think this because? Your experience leads you to believe this. And you know this because? Shrub told you maybe? You sound like your the only one in shrub's cabinet who gets it, huh? And I guess you and those who believe what you believe are the only ones who pay attention. You must really be proud of yourself to be one of the few who ever pays attention. How envious I am of you.
A pretty extreme position for NewYorker to take, if you ask me. Specious and rediculous. Throw a Seinfeld quote in there! D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney. Hurry!!!
Iraq having oil makes it of a high interest, but it was not the driving reason we disposed of Saddam. You give the conservatives too little credit. They aren't so simple and merchantile as you may think.
I'm not implying it, I'm stating it. Why doesn't he comment on presidential scandals in the oval office too - he's an expert on that now too right? Afterall he's been watching them for 19 years.
Their actions post invasion seem to at least give reason to suspect otherwise. They are contrary to building a democracy and in-line with building oil profits for themselves and their cronies.
You're right, it's not Bush's agenda - it's the agenda of neo-conservatives who had always believed that the way to change the middle east, solve the problem with Israel, and secure a vital region and make it pro-American was by creating an middle east democracy that would eventually become a western style country that was closely allied to America and could dominate regional politics of the Muslim world. Their hope was that Iraq would be that nation. And once they had a strong and powerful ally in Iraq, they could use Iraq to push Syria, Iran, and other nations to democracies as well, and thus change the whole landscape of the middle east. It was a grand vision, and a terrible misguided one and sorta scary. It was developed in 1988 by who? Dick Cheney. The oil benefits to corporate interests here is just gravy or icing on the cake. But these guys driving for invasion were idealists....the oil companies supported them because thier interests aligned. BUt they were not going into Iraq to get thier oil.
Again it isn't icing on the cake when one has to choose between actions that benefit democracy or their pocket book with oil deals and they choose the one that benefits their pocketbooks at the expense of democracy.
