Ayer o anteayer todos los medios, especialmente las TV se hacían eco de la noticia de que Alan Greenspan acusaba a Bush de ir a la guerra de Irak por el petróleo (El País, El Mundo, ABC, etc.)
Sin embargo, a través de Barcepundit y de Cine y Política, leo la verdad de lo que quería decir Greenspan y es que él recomendó a la Casa Blanca que quitaran de en medio a Saddam por el bien de la economía mundial.
Por último la aclaración del LA Times:
But first we should clear the air about something. Greenspan claims that the quote was taken out of context. Greenspan called the Post -- Bob Woodward, no less -- to say that, in fact, he didn't think the White House was motivated by oil. Rather, he was. A Post story Monday explained that Greenspan had long favored Saddam Hussein's ouster because the Iraqi dictator was a threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil passes every day. Hussein could have sent the price of oil way past $100 a barrel, which would have inflicted chaos on the global economy.In other words, Greenspan favored the war on the grounds that it would stabilize the flow of oil, even though that wasn't the war's political underpinning. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan told Woodward, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario