This article references an external link -- click here to visit 
http://www.washingtonpost...6/AR2007091601287_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost...6/AR2007091601287_pf.html
As for Iraq, 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."
lost74
7 Comments
Greenspan also said the war in Iraq was for oil.
Interesting that he is a Republican but says that if Hillary Clinton becomes president she would do a fine job.
He also said last night on 60 Minutes (and in his memoir) that President Bush was one of the most incompetent he has ever worked for. He said he thought Nixon and Clinton were the most intelligent presidents.
:) next!
In his new book “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Greenspan wrote: “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”
He also said this: Meanwhile, a German magazine reported that Greenspan said it is possible that the euro could replace the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of choice.
Greenspan said that at the end of 2006, some 25 percent of all currency reserves held by central banks were held in euros, compared to 66 percent for the U.S. dollar.
I wonder if Greenspan has begun to investin the Euro instead of the dollar?
I bet he has *S*
ill try my hardest to comprehend your right wing whacky threads!
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)