Alan Greenspan, who just a few days ago was quoted as saying the Iraq war was indeed about oiiiiiiil, has now come back to “clarify” his statement:

“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.”

That’s an interesting “clarification” from what we had him saying last week:

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

He also “clarified” that this wasn’t an oil grab in his estimation:

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.

“No, no, no,” he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of “making certain that the existing
system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will.”

Wow. That’s a lot of backpedaling, Mr. Greenspan. Seriously. I’m quite disappointed. If you’re gonna say something, stand by it. Instead, he had a bit of a shitstorm, and backed off. Truth is, it was a great comeback and explanation, but it looks like a whole bunch of spin when juxtaposed with his original statement.

via Slobokan