If nothing else Greenspan proves his very point as we see this kind of response.
It really IS sad that it is inconvenient due to the predictable response to the oil reason, from those who misinterpret it.
This has been clarified already.
I don't think anybody denies one of the main threads in the 'rope' of reason for Iraq was to insure keeping the business of middle eastern oil from being taken hostage by Saddam. The cry,"It's all about oil" implies the U.S. went to steal oil.It is VERY inconvenient to lay out how oil plays into the whole thing because then the "for the oil" arguer says, "See? I not far off. That's almost the same thing!"
He doesn't realize that ,no,its NOT at all near ...

If nothing else Greenspan proves his very point as we see this kind of response.
It really IS sad that it is inconvenient due to the predictable response to the oil reason, from those who misinterpret it.
This has been clarified already.
I don't think anybody denies one of the main threads in the 'rope' of reason for Iraq was to insure keeping the business of middle eastern oil from being taken hostage by Saddam. The cry,"It's all about oil" implies the U.S. went to steal oil.It is VERY inconvenient to lay out how oil plays into the whole thing because then the "for the oil" arguer says, "See? I not far off. That's almost the same thing!"
He doesn't realize that ,no,its NOT at all near the same thing.
Once anyone with a real world explanation utters the word oil, the detractors scream,:"I told you! It's all about oil!", -- like you're doing here.
To which the explainer can only sigh .
This set of circumstances makes it politically inconvenient to talk about the oil argument which is really rather sad. Being an economics guy, Greenspan advised Bush that it was crucial to keep Saddam from interrupting the oil markets.
Then he sees that you can't explain that to pin-visioned folks who will never change the notion they've created for themselves as long as the word 'oil' is uttered.That makes it inconvenient to just talk straight about that and that saddens Greenspan.
ADD:
"Der, I thought you said it was WMD!"
Yes,weapons and support of terrorism and hate for the west were methods by which the oil might be interrupted.

We need to THINK. Things are not just one thing or the other; black or white; simple one-dimensional causes or effects.Not to mention considering alternate realities if different action had been taken.

I am not denying it was about oil and I fully realize we live in an oil based economy. That's what this folly is all about and I am saying recognize it and admit it. And don't ever lie to the American people about why we go to war and damage the trust in our government both here and around the world.

The other truth is that the American people would not have supported a war based on having access to oil reserves. Never. That's the same reasoning that launched Japan to secure resources for its viability in World War II. (We stopped shipping them oil they went to Southeast Asia to get it).

And since it was obvious that the UN weapons inspectors weren't going to find any WMD's Bush=Cheney ha...

I am not denying it was about oil and I fully realize we live in an oil based economy. That's what this folly is all about and I am saying recognize it and admit it. And don't ever lie to the American people about why we go to war and damage the trust in our government both here and around the world.

The other truth is that the American people would not have supported a war based on having access to oil reserves. Never. That's the same reasoning that launched Japan to secure resources for its viability in World War II. (We stopped shipping them oil they went to Southeast Asia to get it).

And since it was obvious that the UN weapons inspectors weren't going to find any WMD's Bush=Cheney had to launch the invasion for oil before everybody else finally caught on that the boogie man was powerless.

The next thing is to recognize our historical folly to secure energy independence (Reagan administration dismantaling Carter's alternative energy initiatives). Stop coddling and subsidizing the oil industry and put that money in research, subsidization of US produced renewable energy, and tax breaks for consumers to install geothermal, wind, and solar energy producing systems.

The rise in oil prices, from $28 a barrel to $80 a barrel, due to this war costs US consumers $400 billion dollars a year. That's on top of the (low estimate) of $600 billion spent on this ridiculous war (not including future benefits to treat the 20,000+ wounded soldiers).

Saddam had no power at the time of the invasion. He had a crumbling military that couldn't get replacement parts and was contained by no-fly zones. It's ridiculous to think he somehow could have marched 200 miles through Iran, or 200 miles through Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Emerits to control the Straits of Hormuz. Absolutely f'ing ridiculous.

I expect the other sheep of Bush and Cheney to show up soon enough.

But on "Today" show this morning, Mr. Greenspan, who is married to NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell, tried to do the administration a solid, by claiming that coverage of that one sentence has been, quote, "unfair."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN GREENSPAN, FORMER CHIEF, FEDERAL RESERVE & AUTHOR: It`s utterly unfair. I was expressing my view. Saddam Hussein was obviously seeking to get a chokehold on the Straits of Hormuz where 18 million barrels a day flow from the Middle East to the industrial world. Had he been able to get a hold of a nuclear weapon and indeed move through Kuwait and into the Saudi Arabia and control the Straits of Hormuz, he would have caused chaos in t[b]...

But on "Today" show this morning, Mr. Greenspan, who is married to NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell, tried to do the administration a solid, by claiming that coverage of that one sentence has been, quote, "unfair."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALAN GREENSPAN, FORMER CHIEF, FEDERAL RESERVE & AUTHOR: It`s utterly unfair. I was expressing my view. Saddam Hussein was obviously seeking to get a chokehold on the Straits of Hormuz where 18 million barrels a day flow from the Middle East to the industrial world. Had he been able to get a hold of a nuclear weapon and indeed move through Kuwait and into the Saudi Arabia and control the Straits of Hormuz, he would have caused chaos in the international community.

UNIDENTIFIED HOST: So are we talking about semantics here, Alan? In other words, the administration went to war saying it was all about weapons of mass destruction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREENSPAN: I believe that they believed that. I`m not saying that they believed it was about oil. I`m saying that it is about oil and I believe it was necessary to get Saddam out of there.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Nice backtracking by Greenspan.

Wish we really had dedicated journalists in the conservative corporate media so that they could match those incongruous statements with:

"If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first."

and Paul Wolfowitz saying:

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

and the documents obtained by Harper's and BBC showing [u][b...

Nice backtracking by Greenspan.

Wish we really had dedicated journalists in the conservative corporate media so that they could match those incongruous statements with:

"If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first."

and Paul Wolfowitz saying:

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

and the documents obtained by Harper's and BBC showing Dick Cheney met with the oil industry to plan the dividing up of Iraqi oil fields and rewarding of contracts.

It's also been reported that Hunt Oil has completed bypassed the Baghdad government and negotiated directly with the Kurds in the North for oil concessions.

Patriotic oil companies willfully breaking down the central government of Iraq to GET TO THAT OIL.