La "bombe" a été publiée samedi dernier dans le Washington Post. Dans ses mémoires, Alan Greenspan affirmerait que la guerre en Irak a été motivée par le pétrole.
Without elaborating, he writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
Devant le tollé provoqué par cette déclaration, Alan Greenspan a jugé bon accorder une entrevue au Washington Post, entrevue qui a été publiée lundi matin.
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." […]
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. […] 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.
Voici comment Radio-Canada a traité cette nouvelle dans son Téléjournal du lundi soir:
Le vidéo à été retiré à la demande de Radio-Canada