[Vision2020] Federal Reserve Head Greenspan: Iraq Invasion For Oil
starbliss at gmail.com
Mon Sep 17 15:28:17 PDT 2007
Mark et. al.
Greenspan is obviously speaking more "freely" regarding his opinions about
the Iraq war, than he was before retiring as chairman of the
Federal Reserve. He has even recently spoken critically regarding some
aspects of the Bush Administration's economic policies. But Krugman's
dismay at Greenspan's "silence" (my wording, not Krugman's) regarding
aspects of the Bush Administration's economic policies while they were
being implemented when he was Fed. Reserve Chairman, also applies to his
silence regarding the invasion of Iraq before the invasion.
Nonetheless, I am pleased Greenspan is now speaking out on the rationale for
the invasion of Iraq. His voice helps to reinforce the astonishingly
disturbing conclusion that appears inescapable: that the rationale for
invading Iraq that was sold to the American public was based on deception.
Of course this silence, and thus complicity, with the invasion of
Iraq, regarding those who did not engage in aggressive public critical
scrutiny of the Bush Administration rationale for invading Iraq, applies
across the board: the US Congress, the US media, and most of the American
The media especially failed in it's role as one of the pillars of our
Democratic system. The media, the Fourth Estate, as it is called, with the
other three pillars of our Democratic system being the
Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government, served often as
cheerleaders for the invasion. The media's role as the Fourth
Estate obligates it to expose government lies or deceptions of the public
about critical issues; and invading another nation, thus taking the US to
war, must rate as one of the most profound and important decisions.
However, many in the media at the time of the Iraq invasion had valid
worries about their careers being in jeopardy if they appeared in the least
bit "unpatriotic." Thus their failure in some cases to be responsible
journalists fulfilling their critical role in the Fourth Estate. And many
journalists fell prey to the blinding effects of fear and group think
patriotism. They did not deliberately remain silent. They really believed
the invasion was the correct action based on what they were being told by
the Bush administration.
On 9/17/07, Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com> wrote:
> Paul Krugman, University of Chicago economist and NYTimes columnist has a
> scathing piece on Greenspan and his revisionist history of his involvement
> with the Bush tax cuts.<http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2170661,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12>
> *OPINION* | September 17, 2007
> *Op-Ed Columnist: Sad Alan's Lament*
> By PAUL KRUGMAN<http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/opinion/17krugman.html?ex=1190692800&en=d32c2835aba6487a&ei=5070&emc=eta1>
> If Alan Greenspan wasn't intending to lend crucial support to the Bush tax
> cuts, he had ample opportunity to set the record straight when it could have
> made a difference.
> ...Mr Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview
> with the Guardian that the invasion of Iraq was aimed at protecting Middle
> East oil reserves: "I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as
> the excuse was utterly beside the point."
> In the book Mr Greenspan writes: "Whatever their publicised angst over
> Saddam Hussain's 'weapons of mass destruction', American and British
> authorities were also concerned about violence in the area that harbours a
> resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy. I am
> saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone
> knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020