All I can say is this is just delicious.  I will enjoy watch the MSM try to backtrack and cover their error over the next few days.

Matthew,

Greenspan clarified his comments.  He didn't deny them.  The quote being presented by the MSM does appear in his book as far as I can tell:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Is this quote not in his memoirs? 

The media reported accurately.  It was Greenspan who was unclear.  Hence his clarifying comments.

Believer

What does the msm care, the horse is out of the barn and Andrea Mitchell's hubby is now supporting Hillary.

The damage gets done, because the allegation is more newsworthy than the facts. Why Bush did not jettison Greenback, Tenet and the rest of the holdovers is beyond me and will continue to bite him in the knee.

Like I said the damage is done and the retraction will only be played like someone in the WH got to him.

Candidly, I believe the Iraq issue was national security and oil is part of that issue, and Bush should have said so in the beginning lumping our care and concern for the only democracy in the mideast, Israel.If the rest of the world refuses or does not have the nerve to stand these tinpots, then we should extract as much oil as it takes to pay for both wars. Let's resurrect "to the victor go the spoils."

I hate to burst the bubbles of all those liberals out there but Greenspan is a protege' of Ayn Rand. (Horror)

Greenspan's comments basically betray his sentiment that the war should have been about oil all along, and that was all the reason that anyone needed to go in and kick Saddam's ass. To Greenspan oil is money and he is unapologetic about his devotion to capitalism (more Horror). In a polite sort of way he is accusing GWB of being too liberal with his rhetoric for going to war, not too conservative!

If the CIC had elected not to go into Iraq, and Saddam then undertook another adventure in an attempt to gain control of a large percentage of the world's oil supply, as he was attempting to do when he invaded Kuwait, who would the Washington ComPost, along the rest of the liberal MSM and their democrat compatriots, be lining up to blame?

Why, George W. Bush, of course.

When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.
-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.

" ... While he was "reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon," he added, "my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon."

Saddam had one of the biggest and worst WMDs ... millions and millions and millions of US dollars.

His own propensity for war-making aside, in the years prior to our invading him he was funding the families of suicide/homicide bombers in Israel with 10s of thousands a per bomber/family.  I believe the bombings increased after his funding started.

The UN Oil For Food scam insured a constant flow of money into his pockets ... So, if Saddam DIDN'T have a WMD, per say, that doesn't mean he wasn't capable of buying one for someone else to use on us ... By paying suicide/homicide bombers in Israel he proved he was a threat to do just that.

Saddam was no threat to the Straits of Hormuz, even at the peak of his power, and besides, there is simply no end to a military role around the world if justified on the basis Greenspan does.

There is a MARKET for oil, which is very fungible, and even dictators have to sell in order to profit from it. The government really has no business getting involved and in fact our interventions in the ME have had the effect of removing supplies from the market. All the government does is to DISTORT markets and waste defense dollars.

Those who advocate that defense dollars be used to "protect" energy supplies should also advocate costing out their policies via direct taxes on oil, so consumers can see what they are paying for.

Greenspan has shown himself to be no friend of free and responsible markets, on this and many other issues. http://blog.mises.or.... He lives a sorry legacy, along with others who promote state interventions in the economy.

"I do not know what is true. ... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty."
- Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.

Thanks for the comment.

Saddam was interested in gaining greater control over oil resources, but he found he couldn't steal Iran's or Kuwait's.  After the first Gulf war, he was no longer a threat to other's oil resources, or to closing the straits.

You and Greenspan both confuse the desire for more wealth - obtained from selling petroleum - with a willingness to commit economic suicide (close the straits, and face the coordinated opposition of the US and other exporters using the straits) to spite one's face.

Yes, he posed a challenge to the Saudi monarchs and their Wahhabist regime.  Thank goodness we put a stop to Saddam's secular regime and continue to prop up the Saudis.  That's been such a winning strategy, not only for our security, but for keeping oil prices down while promoting liberty, of a piece with our success with installing the Shah.

The invasion of Iraq has of course done nothing to secure the straits, though it has drastically further curtailed Iraqi production, despite hopes for the opposite.

Maybe it's time to give serious though to actually letting oil markets work ....

"I do not know what is true. ... But in the midst of doubt ... I do not doubt that the faith is true and adorable which leads a soldier to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty." - Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.