I think Alan Greenspan is sort-of out of the loop when it comes to making foreign policy. Now if Rice had said it, that would be different.
--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] No oil for blood
> To: "lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org" <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 4:37 PM
> On Jul 2, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Doug
> Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 2, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Lew wrote:
> >
> >> Politicians are often ill-informed, but Alan
> Greenspan admitted that the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was
> really aimed at protecting Middle East oil reserves. "I
> thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the
> excuse was utterly beside the point", he said. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2170602,00.html).
> >
> > Another assertion, quoted from an authority. Could you
> explain just how this works?
>
> When attempting to explain someone's actions, what they
> believe to be the case is very often more important than
> what actually is. Colonialist governments in the 19c thought
> their expansions would provide wonderful export markets and
> found themselves disappointed, at least on that front.
>
> Of course there may have been other motives floating around
> the foreign policy establishment, and there were elements
> that were opposed to it, &c. Lord knows they threw a
> good variety of arguments at the public.
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>