PDA

View Full Version : Gates rejects Greenspan claim war is about oil


Stoner
09-17-2007, 04:36 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday rejected former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's statement that the Iraq war "is largely about oil."

With Democratic lawmakers apparently short of the votes needed to force President George W. Bush to change course, Gates defended the war, now in its fifth year, and said it's being driven by the need to stabilize the Gulf and put down hostile forces.

Gates's defense came a day after thousands of anti-war protesters marched in Washington. A spokeswoman for one of the groups who organized the march said more than 200 protesters were taken into custody, including at least 10 Iraq war veterans, when they attempted to cross a police barrier near the U.S. Capitol.

Greenspan, in his new book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," echoed long-held complaints of many critics that a key motivating force in the war is to maintain U.S. access to the rich oil supplies in Iraq.

"Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy," Greenspan wrote.

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil," added Greenspan, who for decades had been one of the most respected U.S. voices on fiscal policies.

After more than 18 years at the helm, Greenspan retired in January 2006 as chairman of the Fed, the nation's central bank, which regulates monetary policy.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Gates said, "I have a lot of respect for Mr. Greenspan." But he disagreed with his comment about oil being a leading motivating factor in the war.

"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."

"I think that it's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's about aggressive dictators," Gates said.

"After all, Saddam Hussein launched wars against several of his neighbors," Gates said. "He was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, certainly when we went in, in 1991."

Bush last week ordered gradual troop reductions in Iraq into next summer but defied calls for a dramatic change of course, saying the U.S. military role there will stretch beyond his presidency.

Gates said he would urge Bush to veto a proposal by Democratic Sen. James Webb of Virginia that would require U.S. troops spend as much time at home as their previous tour in Iraq.

"It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that," Gates said. "It really is a backdoor way to try and force the president to accelerate the drawdowns. Again, the drawdowns have to be based on the conditions on the ground."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said he did not know if the Senate, held by Democrats, 51-49, would be able to muster the 60 votes needed to clear a Republican procedural roadblock and approve the Webb measure. But he said "it has a good chance."

He conceded, however, that at this point backers do not have the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a Bush veto of the legislation.

"But that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for what we believe in just because the president may veto it," Levin said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"I think there's enough Republicans who believe we've got to change course but whether they'll vote that way, we just simply don't know," Levin said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1618999120070916?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

preservanation
09-17-2007, 11:30 AM
If this was the case, and Greenie is such a military expert (news to me), why did he not say anything sooner?
He never had a problem speaking his mind before.

BTW, his wife is Andrea Mitchel, a partisan hack who still maintained it was Rove who leaked Plame's ID. Not Armatage, which is the FACT.

He also might be slipping a bit.
Who knows, maybe we can just chalk him up as a dupe or a doddering old fool.

Deadshot
09-17-2007, 12:10 PM
Don't you realize how politics works? Who cares if he was a military expert, he's a loyal Republican who is an expert in Finance! That expert called out the Prez and the war...so here goes another Republican "cutting and running" from the POTUS.:ecstatic:

Stoner
09-17-2007, 01:08 PM
Who knows, maybe we can just chalk him up as a dupe or a doddering old fool.


Yeah but he made a critical comment about the POTUS so neolibs will run with it. They don't care that his comments were simply to promote his new book. Facts are irrelevent to libs.

Deadshot
09-17-2007, 01:19 PM
Who knows, maybe we can just chalk him up as a dupe or a doddering old fool.


Yeah but he made a critical comment about the POTUS so neolibs will run with it. They don't care that his comments were simply to promote his new book. Facts are irrelevent to libs.


Well the FACT is that a prominent Republican just called out the POTUS and his party. The GOP is taking the fact that he said this to heart. Book promotion or not, he didn't need to say that unless he meant it.

Just another GOP domino falling...:ecstatic:

davo
09-22-2007, 06:27 AM
To be more correct, it's about the fed and big oil controlling the currency and terms that oil is sold in, rather than a physical imperial expansion to stop America running out of petrol. The rapidly devaluing US $ risks hyperinflation if more countries around the world ditch the dollar, especially China. If big oil producers like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq give up the dollar as well, there will be no incentive whatsoever for other countries to keep a fiat federal reserve $ as the standard for international trade. This will trigger an economic meltdown in the USA, possibly seeing the end of the Fed.

The US invaded Iraq in 2003 because Saddam started selling his oil exclusively in Euros for 6 months. Now Iran has copied the idea and set up their own oil exchange, trading in every currency except the dollar. The US has been reasonably close to Saudi Arabia despite them operating an oil cartel, because they've been selling it exclusively in US dollars (which the fed can make from nothing). But if Saudi Arabia ditches the dollar, the Fed Reserve is screwed. That's why they want a permanent military presence in the Middle East. By holding Iraq, they at least have some safeguard against other countries ditching the dollar.