WASHINGTON, Sep 17 (Reuters) Clarifying a controversial comment in his new memoir, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he told the White House before the Iraq war that removing Saddam Hussein was ''essential'' to secure world oil supplies, according to an interview published today.
Greenspan, who wrote in his memoir that ''the Iraq War is largely about oil,'' said in a Washington Post interview that while securing global oil supplies was ''not the administration's motive,'' he had presented the White House before the 2003 invasion with the case for why removing the then-Iraqi leader was important for the global economy.
''I was not saying that that's the administration's motive,'' Greenspan said in the interview conducted on Saturday. ''I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential.'' In his new book ''The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,'' Greenspan wrote: ''I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.'' US Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday rejected the comment, which echoed long-held complaints of many critics that a key motivating force in the war was to maintain US access to the rich oil supplies in Iraq.
Appearing on ABC's ''This Week,'' Gates said, ''I have a lot of respect for Mr Greenspan.'' But he disagreed with his comment about oil being a leading motivating factor in the war.
''I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991, and I just don't believe it's true,'' Gates said.
''I think that it's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.
It's about aggressive dictators,'' Gates said.
Greenspan retired in January 2006 after more than 18 years as chairman of the Fed, the US central bank, which regulates monetary policy.
He has been conducting a round of interviews coinciding with the release of his book, which goes on sale today.
In The Washington Post interview, Greenspan said at the time of the invasion he believed like President George W Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ''because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.'' But Greenspan's main support for Saddam's ouster was economically motivated, the Post reported.
''My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day'' passing through,'' Greenspan said.
Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as 120 dollar a barrel and would mean ''chaos'' to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.
Given that, ''I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential,'' he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.
Greenspan, who in his memoir criticized Bush and congressional Republicans for abandoning fiscal discipline and putting politics ahead of sound economics, also expressed dismay with the Democratic Party in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published today.
Greenspan told the Journal he was ''fairly close'' to former President Bill Clinton's economic advisers, but added, ''The next administration may have the Clinton administration name, but the Democratic Party ... has moved ... very significantly in the wrong direction.'' He cited its populist bent, especially its skepticism of free trade. Clinton's wife, Sen Hillary Clinton, is the Democratic presidential front-runner.
Greenspan, a self-described libertarian Republican, told the Journal he was not sure how he would vote in the 2008 election.
''I just may not vote,'' he was quoted as saying, adding, ''I'm saddened by the whole political process.'' REUTERS SYU SSC1242