Greenspan was misunderstood—or was he?

The other day when Alan Greenspan was quoted by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post saying that the Iraq invasion was “largely about oil,” everyone took that as shocking support for the view of the Bush haters of the left and the right. Writing in the L.A. Times, Jonah Goldberg explains what Greenspan really meant, based on a follow-up article in yesterday’s Washington Post—and it’s the exact opposite of what the liberal media eagerly assumed he meant. Namely, it was Greenspan himself who felt that war on Iraq was necessary for the sake of protecting oil shipments through the Straits of Hormuz. Even though the administration never said the war was for the sake of protecting oil supplies, Greenspan felt that war was needed for that reason.

That’s a rare occasion in which Goldberg has written something useful. But, ever showing his true nature, even in this otherwise worthwhile column, he can’t refrain from the type of gratuitous excretory comment that has earned him the name of Animal House conservative.

- end of initial entry -

Ben W. writes:

Here’s what the Times of London said on Sunday:

“The former high priest of capitalism writes in his new memoirs: ‘I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.’”

How significant is the role of oil in Greenspan’s mind? He asserts that it is “what everyone knows”—not simply what he desired.

LA replies:

For the moment, I cannot reconcile Goldberg’s reference to the Washingon Post story, which was based on a telephone call from Greenspan, with the quote from Greenspan’s book quoted by the Sunday Times.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 18, 2007 10:45 AM | Send