Alan Greenspan "REAL STORY" War was really for Oil

[tmorr37]

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html


By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2007; A03


Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

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.

[oldskiier]

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html


By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2007; A03


Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

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.

This makes much more sense !!!!

[harpua]

But I thought it was cuz of WMD's...:beer:

[oldskiier]

But I thought it was cuz of WMD's...:beer:

It was !! like Greenspan said ...we thought he had them ..and he actted like he had them !!! all he had to do was let in the inspectors to see....was his choice !!!! he made the wrong choice !!!!

Either way thei is what it was about !!! "controlling the Straits of Hormuz" Bottom line !! had to be done !!And thats why we wont ever leave !!!

[tmorr37]

This makes much more sense !!!!

Yeah and they knew it when it was reported
But why not report and imply it was all Evil George Bush

[tmorr37]

But I thought it was cuz of WMD's...:beer:

It was the 14 UN resolutions that Saddam Failed at.
Everyone knew this except the SLEEPING AMERICAN PUBLIC
Which is why the Libs and Media and say what they want.
The people can't remember from 10 minuets ago.

I was for it before I was against it :headbang:

[oldskiier]

It was the 14 UN resolutions that Saddam Failed at.
Everyone knew this except the SLEEPING AMERICAN PUBLIC
Which is why the Libs and Media and say what they want.
The people can't remember from 10 minuets ago.

I was for it before I was against it :headbang:



Yeah but those don't matter .....we want to make Bush look like a liar !!!....Damm commi Dems !!!!

[rykpa]

This makes much more sense !!!!

*******

sabbatacle...sabatacal....LEAVE.


Good to see you back.

[rykpa]

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287_pf.html


By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2007; A03


Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

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.

*******

AGAIN.

Oh, Dan.......Dan Rather....is that you pumping this lie???

It's like playing "Where's Waldo?".

[rykpa]

It was the 14 UN resolutions that Saddam Failed at.
Everyone knew this except the SLEEPING AMERICAN PUBLIC
Which is why the Libs and Media and say what they want.
The people can't remember from 10 minuets ago.

I was for it before I was against it :headbang:

*******

we have the shallowness that you speak of. Like,...YA KNOW????

[EdwardVIII]

But I thought it was cuz of WMD's...:beer::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

[Ethanol Boy]

I have no problem with this actually if a part of a majority of the reason we went to Iraq was because of oil. Another reason [like a previous poster had said] is Saddaam had violated 14 UN Regulations.....either way...nice job for our country to lead....where other parts of the world are not leading.

There are leaders and there are followers. I have no problem with our country for leading when Bush's main job is to protect our country....physically and economically.

Thoughts?

[yunowu]

Yawn....He is just trying to sell book !! :giggle: :giggle: :giggle: