In the second-to-last paragraph of a story on page A3 Monday, The Wall Street Journal says Alan Greenspan was “himself a behind-the-scenes advocate of overthrowing former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.”
He says he felt “getting Saddam out of there was very important,” not because of weapons of mass destruction, but because he was convinced the Iraqi dictator wanted to control the Strait of Hormuz, through which a sizable portion of the world’s oil passes. That would enable him to threaten the U.S. and its allies.
The Fed chairman advocated going to war to protect the Strait of Hormuz?
Message to Audit Readers: No, you are not crazy. This is new information. The story, under the headline “Greenspan’s Dismay Extends Both Ways, wildly underplays the point.
He said he conveyed that view to both Mr. Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, another friend from the Ford administration, but doubts that played a part in the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq.
On the other hand, it probably didn’t slow things down much, either.
The Journal’s story is based on one of a number of interviews Greenspan gave to major media outlets to promote his new book, The Age of Turbulence. The questions stem from the book’s startling phrase, first reported by The Washington Post on Saturday, that “the Iraq War is largely about oil.”
I’m sure hellacious deadlines played a role in this fact getting buried; the book news broke over the weekend, and Greenspan’s interviews followed right afterward. There was a lot of news in the book; It’s going to be a while to sort things out.
The New York Times didn’t do much better in a story headlined ” A ‘Disappointed’ Greenspan Lashes Out at Bush’s Economic Policies”:
Mr. Greenspan also spelled out his own views about the war in Iraq: he supported the invasion, he says, not because Saddam Hussein might have had weapons of mass destruction, but because Saddam had shown a clear desire to capture the Middle East’s oil fields.
“I supported taking out Saddam, because he was moving inexorably toward taking the world’s oil resources,” he said. “Iraq was a far greater threat than Iran to the world scene.”
In his interview with Greenspan, though, the Post’s Bob Woodward picks up on Greenspan’s statement about the Iraq War being “largely about oil” and asks him about it.
In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.
“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”
He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, “I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.” Greenspan said that he made his economic argument to White House officials and that one lower-level official, whom he declined to identify, told him, “Well, unfortunately, we can’t talk about oil.” Asked if he had made his point to Cheney specifically, Greenspan said yes, then added, “I talked to everybody about that.”
Greenspan said he had backed Hussein’s ouster, either through war or covert action. “I wasn’t arguing for war per se,” he said. But “to take [Hussein] out, in my judgment, it was something important for the West to do and essential, but I never saw Plan B” — an alternative to war.
Whatever one’s thoughts about a Fed chairman’s quiet advocacy of a war—what did William Rehnquist have to say about a diplomatic opening to North Korea?— the revelation of Greenspan’s role deserved the attention the Post gave it.
Reading the Journal’s version, a reader might conclude that Greenspan’s role in the pre-war debate was known. It wasn’t, though the press did uncover some hints.