I have to agree that Mr. Greenspan was not privy to any war planning. His reliability as fed chairman gives him credibility to most that isn't warranted. He is an amateur like the rest of us in this area. He ignores the operations going on in the Phillipines and Indonesia to mention two. I have felt all along that Iran and Syria were the real targets in the middle east. There are other countries in that region that are never asked about their opinion. Why does no one ever ask about how the U.A.E. feels about our leaving. In the end I wish that Mr. Greenspan would use the temperance in areas that he doesn't understand that he used in areas that he does.

Dave Fulkerson, Reno, Nv

Actually, Saddam Hussein was a secular leader, who used Islam as a form of legitimacy. Iraq was not run by Sharia, instead it was run by Saddam Hussein whose interests were to increase his own power by any means necessary. The relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda was almost non-existent and it was certainly over-hyped by the Bush administration. Most of Congress and the media accepted the Bush administration's assertions without a real debate. Now we are mired in a war that will cost us a trillion dollars, thousands of lives and perhaps not even lead to a victory or make us safer from terrorists. Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist before our invasion, now it is a legitimate faction of the al Qaeda terrorist network that our invasion helped to create. We do not have enough troops to maintain the moderately successful surge and we have no real plan or clear goal for success in Iraq other than to avoid a complete failure. Whatever the motivations for war, the results have been poor.

Mark, Petaluma, USA

"... Even countries opposed to the war believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. "

The UK helped start the war and we knew that there weren't any weapons of mass distruction. The 'dodgy dossier' and the mendacious '45 minutes to armaggedon' claim, etc. were all untrue. Not even the population of Brittain believed them as we were supposed to.

The UK-US even started the war without UN approval because they refused to wait for weapon inspectors to finish investigating.

The war may or may not have been about oil but it most certainly was not about WMDs.

Daniel Wild, Derby, UK

no one ,including Bush, thought saddam had wmd's. it was a lie to get us to invade the wrong country. saudi arabia would have been a much better target since it was their citizens their passports and their money that caused 9/11. and yes saddam did a much better job controlling his country than we do

steve, kingston, ny

I agree 100% with Mr Greenspan! The whole world - but Americans and some British conservatives - knows that oil was the only reason!

ana lagerborg, stockholm, sweden

Lucid and informative essay.

The Vietnam economics are apropos. I have always suspected that the inflation during the 70s-80s was necessary in order to retire the debt incurred during that war.

Per capita purchasing power peaked in 1971.

The US needs to be cautious. If the currency inflates in the 2010-2020 time frame to finance the Iraq war, we might see 5% of the population owning 75% of the assets. 50% of the population will be poor by then, many not even speaking English, and the middle class going extinct or downsized. The US moves down the road of becoming a camp of wage slaves, similar to the Russian federation, and China will have a less lucrative customer.

Then I wonder if the debt, now $9 trillion, hits 40 trillion and China holds ten trillion of that .... well, while Bush worries about our military stance, the vulnerability of the US is economic. The US will eventually find that it has used up its credit limit, via spending, and changing demographics.

Kent Betts, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Who are the Conservatives that opposed the war?

Disgusted, New Orleans,

it all about greed and all she wrote .

alexander, london,

Like everything in history, war in Iraq has 1001 reasons. It is about power, and it is about oil. And within remaining 999 reasons you can find everything, including 9/11, 1938, 1939, 1941, plot by Iraq to kill Bush's father and many other things, big and small.

Alexander Weisberg, Bronx, US

"even countries opposed to the war believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction"
Really? Which Ones? What are the sources for this endlessly repeated false claim?
The actual intelligence (e.g among British MoD intelligence analysts) was that Saddam might have some chemical or biological weapons left but that he would not use them unless his country was invaded and he was on the point of being overthrown. The CIA analysis as provided by George Tenet to congress was similar. Saddam had chemical warheads for his scud missiles in 1991 but didnt use any of them - because he knew he'd be nuked if he did.
There never was a WMD threat from Iraq and even British and American intelligence acknowledged that fact.
Oil and gas is one of the greatest sources of money and power in the modern world. Saudi has the largest proven reserves in the world and is a torturing dictatorship - but a US ally. Iraq has the second largest. Iran has the third largest. Co-oncidence?

Duncan McFarlane, Carluke, Scotland, UK

To David Berriman: The three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) which each have certain political power over the others creates a system of checks and balances. Being an adversarial system, this form of government naturally creates differences of opinion between all parties involved. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights does in fact ALLOW citizens, politicians, and publishers to write or say most anything they want about the president, including comments that may in fact undermine his authority or demonize his decisions. I suggest you brush up on your grade school civics lessons.

Tom, Seattle,

If Greenspan found the Bush administration so bad, he shoukld have resigned and made his criticisms loud and clear. And to come on now with his royal proclamations whern he has nothing to say after all this time is self-serving to the nth degree. Just can't stand being out of the spotlight Of course one of the reasons for war was to protect oil supply. Big deal. Who in his right mind wouldn't want the oil supply to half the world out of the hands of dictators who hate the free world. I do agree that Bush and Republicans have most definitely abandoned principle that the best government is the least government and their running the country into this monstrous debt is inexcusable. What to do, Where to go Democrats? No way

Barbara Boyer, San antonio,

Conservatives are in a pickle. While standing in a morass of failures generated by a nest of liars that they voted for and continue to defend, they accuse others of dishonesty. They have cleary lost their souls, if not their minds. Their integrity has become nothing more than flagrant affectation. That this has always been the mode of liberals and liberalism, or more acurately, the left, doesn't help. George Bush is this country's everyman who, armored in hubris and ignorance, believes that stupidity can be rectified by power. This nation of lard butts and mini-minds is headed for a lean and bitter buffet.

Russ Thayer, Fredericksburg, Texas

Desperate times call for desperate verbiage. The author seeks, absurdly, to sever the concepts of "US power" and "economic self-interest," while branding anyone who sees the obvious primacy of oil to U.S. foreign policy as "Marxist" or as otherwise not worthy of being taken seriously by civilized society.

Say, what? It was obvious to those of us not blinded by neoconservative ideology that the war was about a whole nexus of motivations, including 1) Saddam's refusal to be "OUR sob"; 2) establishment of a (new )U.S. Middle East base from which to "project power"; 3) neutralization of a threat to Israel; 4) demonstration of the new U.S. imperial swagger; 5) achievement of an easy victory (vs. a completely disarmed opponent) by a self-styled "war President" for the sake of political advantage at home; 7) the creation of a huge new overseas market for U.S. products and investment; and 8) yes, OIL, the most important single global resource. WMD was always a pretext at best.

Douglas Greenberg, Berkeley, California

The important thing to remember about Greenscum's quote is not that "Iraq war was largely about oil," but that EVERYONE KNOWS it and won't say it. And not only that, everyone for the most part is STILL not saying it even to discuss his quote. So he is right. Everyone DOES know it, and everyone keeps on denying that it is true.

Talk about Alice in Wonderland . . . let's all go down the treehole.

Sam Snedegar, Pensacola, FL

"even countries opposed to the war believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction"... hum ? who ? where ? who belevied it, except the one which had some interest into this war ( oil etc...) ?

There was not ONE reason, but a lot of different reasons : oil, power, democracy (I 'm laughing), religion, pyschiatry ( my dad was theaten by the bad boy saddm, let's kick his a..), 911 (even if there was not link), crazy theorists who wanted to try in real life their theory (well, in facts who wanted OTHERS to try it, I'm speaking about all the Rumsfeld, Perle and the others neocon)

For aaron : "Hopefully the occupation of Iraq will end quickly and peacefully." Are we leaving on the same planet ??

Oliv', Greville, France

It is truly amazing how those that are slavishly devoted to American Empire in Iraq can dismiss the long series of highly reputable ex-administration officials who have consistently said that our worst suspicions about the incompetence and questionable motivations in the lead in and conduct of the war are true. Now we have a well respected financial leader who has served multiple administrations backing some of the most explosive war for oil assertions of the anti-war movement and showing they are not as far left as this war's radical right-wing supporters would have you believe. How a movement that has been so consistently confounded by the facts on the ground can claim any authority on "the truth" or the "main stream" is beyond me. Any leadership team that had been as consistently wrong about such important issues would be replaced by their employers. In this case they work for us, the American people, and they will be fired with authority come November 2008.

James Thomas, Denver, CO, USA

Is everyone afraid to discuss reality? Or has modern society become so ignorant of history that they simply do not recognize it, but cast everything into the mold of their own immediate concerns & political doctrines? This war - the whole war, not just the current phase in Iraq - is ultimately about religion. It's been going on, in one form or another, for fourteen centuries.

Read history. Read the Koran. Read the public statements of Osama bin Laden and other Islamists. They are not trying to hide their motives and intentions.

James, Reno`, Nevada, USA

"largely for oil" seems alright. As a capitalist country it is good business decision for both republicans and democrats, That is the reason everyone in the power supported them. And they have not failed. Look at the oil prices in the country. All those in the power who supported, got their due share from both the sides, contracts (the tax payers money) and from investment in oil business.
Capitalist shouid not care about anything else than money,
The author is still in learning mode to know that oil is power.

Herfun, NYC,

That is a sad thing to know that every WAR is somehow about resources and power and control and all that kind of stuff. Right? WAR is a sad thing I agree. WAR is at least a desaster - something new about that? So let us stop fighting WARS over resources, power, control et cetera pp, okay? Everyone! Let us all be brethren, trust each other, love and respect every human being. Stop the killing everywhere. I am not kidding. I'm an old man and don't gonna study WAR no more. I still have a dream. I taught my children to fight for this dream till it can become reality. But I remember that even Moses after a long journey could not enter the "land of milk and honey", the "promised land". God led him to a high mountain just to give him a lookout so he could see it from a distance before he died. After 9/11 America -God's own country- can not believe being an island anymore. There are lots of people who still go for WAR after control of resources. It's a sad thing to know. But it is REALITY!

Dirk R Bode, Hamburg, Germany,

"...but even countries opposed to the war believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

That is not true. Germany, France and Russia stated they had no trustworthy data to support US-UK concerns of ongoing weapons development/concealment in Iraq. Read a press transcript from their joint declaration.

Frank C, Birmingham,

The debate about the causes of the Iraq war tends too often to reduce itself to a conflict between oil-determinist critics and anti-oil-determinist defenders.
I fit into neither category as I believe the war to have been a mendacious and dishonest exercise but don't think oil was anything like the sole cause.
Iraq was , I would suggest, invaded to::
- reinforce Americans' sense of their country being at war and thus ensure W's triumph in the 2004 election.
- demonstrate the power of the American hegamon's armaments and resolve to lesser powers
- try out the shock'n awe tactics Rummy had been advocating since the dear, dead days of Gerry Ford
- try out new weapons
- pander to the "bring on armageddon" Christian Right
- be nice to friends in the Likud
- provide jobs for the boys (particulalrly the boys at Halliburton)
- provide photo ops in flying jackets on aircraft carriers
Oh and, yes, the oil

Ian Morrison, Auckland, New Zealand

"Mr Greenspan has a more reasonable charge against the administration. Instead of cutting expenditure, it spent taxpayers’ money like a drunk who has won the lottery."

Ah yes, recklessly spending tax payers money is a far bigger crime than the illegal invasion of another country based on spun "intelligence" and propaganda that results in 4 million refugees and countless hundreds of thousands dead.

Comments from some of the Americans here might go some why to explaining why that countries reputation is in the gutter, along with other rogue states.

Dean Wright, London, England

Oil companies domiciled in the U.S. couldn't exploit Iraqi oil production under the sanctions imposed on Saddam's Iraq. At the same time, Saddam's govt had contracted with Russian and French firms allowing their participation contingent on the end of sanctions. The occupational coalition govt of Iraq under Paul Bremer invalidated the Russian and French companies' contracts and created new contracts with U.S. oil companies. This followed on the pre-invasion collusive conference of oil companies hosted by V.P. Dick Cheney. The U.S., a major producer of oil, with alternate sources world wide, and having ample wealth with which to pay, had no national imperative to fight for oil. The inhabitants of the U.S. could more easily and more cheaply buy oil than fight for it in Iraq. But that would leave the U.S. companies excluded from the supply chain originating in the Iraqi oil fields. For the sake of getting the U.S. oil companies into Iraq, the U.S. govt went to war.

Daniel Brockman, Petaluma, CA

You just don't get it - oil is power.

Jonathan, London, UK

ounceoflogic is correct, that's all you possess.the again you're from ohio,it's expected

pappy, carmel, usa

I think Bush has initiated the decline of America. Any nation which lets its energy imports get to 61% is on the way out. This happened to the Roman Empire and the British Empire when the energy required to run these - importing food (their form of energyetc from further and further away,crumbling infrastructure in these empires ( 77000 interstate bridges?) and rigidity and incompetence in the administrations finally brought the system to gridlock and failure.
Unfortunately America has the same problems. What do you think your balance of payments is going to look like with oil $160 a barrel by 2012? For Britain, the Gov surplus will go from $4 billion to $40 billion. Aswith America, Britains manufacturing resources have been hollowed out by transfer to China and India.
Mr Greenspans legacy is of course the subprime mess brought on by rediculous fed interest rates engineered to get the re-election of G W Bush

william Alexander, delta, canada

You forgot to mention the conservatives who believe in republic, not empire. In that, I believe they are as far from your British Blimp as it is possible to be.

Catherine, Chicago, USA

does this mean we don't get the oil now? Oh shucks.

m christopher , fort myers, florida

The Times says, in its naivete,
"...[some] believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The real reason for the war was Saddam..."

No, oil was the reason. Even those who claim it was "power" claim that the mideast is of "strategic importance" in a way that North Korea or Lumpen Lahore is not. Meaning, it has the oil that is assumed to be of importance to "national security".

But we don't need their oil. We prove every day that plug-in electric cars and solar power can do away with enough oil to avoid most oil imports.
www.SealBeach.org

Doug Korthof, seal beach, ca

I love how the "right" is now in back pedal mode on the war......you say plenty of Republicans were against the war.......ha ha.....what a joke....this is your war......you wanted it and now we all have to pay to get out of it.....no matter how your spin machine tries to shove it down our throats......this is your Vietnam and it will get worse before it gets better.

dennis, Newport Beach, CA

Stabalise the oil, Teriific.
We pay much more for our petrol now than we did in the "unstable" days.
Now to the mess in Iraq did anyone notice that Saddam kept these lunatics inline?

LTC, scotland,

Oil is power, literally. Hopefully the occupation of Iraq will end quickly and peacefully.

Aaron, Boston, Massachusetts

The Baath Party and the Muslim Brotherhood are the two branches of fascist influence left from World War II. Since the Muslim Brotherhood merged with al Qaeda, that makes al Qaeda and the Baath party -- which still exists in Syria -- as the two non-marginal direct descendants of this malignant cause still kicking on the planet. Nor have they changed their philosophy one bit: they still despise Jews, and they still despise Americans. Unfortunately, that could also be used to describe most British, these days.

Taking out Saddam wasn't all about oil, and it wasn't all about power. It was about finishing this anti-capitalist/anti-Semitic/anti-American movement off once and for all, and in ALL of its permutations.

I, for one, am happy to have been led by a President who reacted to a malignant attack by taking out not one, but two malignant, anti-American governments. If we're going to be hated, then we may as well be feared as well.

John Huettner, Esq., Cleveland, Ohio USA

"Many US conservatives opposed the war." If some names were mentioned, then your Leader would have some validity; it didn't and it doesn't.

David Cunard, Los Angeles, USA

The gall of these people to make such assertions from the sidelines is beyond reprehensible. GWBush is the Commander in Chief of the U.S.A., and after 9-11, it was clear that we were at war with a stateless, faceless enemy of Islamo fascists. Saddam Hussein was an Islamo fascist as much as any other, and was a threat in many ways. He admired Hitler and ran his country in much the same way. Don't give me this "secular" garbage. He was an enemy of freedom and, in particular, the U.S. While you can disagree with Bush's decisions, you can't assign YOUR wild fantasies to his motives. Note that there was NO EVIDENCE...nothing Greenspan heard or saw personally to back such a claim.....just his opinion, and it gets reported as fact. I saw 9-11, and I am not about to attack my President as he fights this war as he sees fit. Our system allows a new President every 4 years. It does not allow undermining and demonizing of the President because he makes decisions you disagree with.

David Berriman, Livonia, MI

In reality Greenspan clarifying the war in Iraq is only half the truth, the other half of the matter is the US and British militarization of Middle East, by starting another war with Iran and Syria which are the only two major countries that are not occupied by the US and British militarism force. When it’s done, according to the plan, then the entire Middle East becomes under the military control by US, Israel and British regime so the Middle East oil production, thereby the world economy, at least this is the idea. The entire matter is an second World War plan drafted by British and American after WWII, but in action, in terms of militarism, since1990s (Gulf War) and made possible by the present Neo – Conservatism, a group that presents what is called New American Century that is based in Washington and two of the prominent advocates of the plans are Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol, recently Paul Wolfowitz was forced to resign from his post in World Bank.

This group of people are indeed present the core of American and British conservatism (Mainly Oil companies and World Bank) and there is no other idea beside the wars in Middle East that are planed and presented by these people, and their main argument is USA interests. Beyond that, they also are considering the fact for one world, one economic and political regime which they insist that it must be based on America and the New Century America and its ideology, which in short means, world economic domination by America. For more information checkout above names and look for whom they are and what their idea about the world is based on, otherwise, Allen Greenspan is correct, the Iraq war is about Oil but it won’t end there.

Bijan Kohan, New York, USA

It is difficult to imagine a weaker piece of journalism than the above article, it must have been written to orders and in great haste.

A.Scott, Bangkok, Thailand

I wholeheartedly agree...How can Greenspan be taken seriously? To make this ridiculous claim is to fall into bed with the looney left. If the war was about oil, then why are we paying near record levels for oil? Even the Iraqis aren't benefiting from their oil supplies completely.

Greenspan has totally blown whatever reputation he had as an independent observer. I never thought he would create such lies just to sell a few books; I figured he was set financially. He's trying to throw the election to Hillary and the Democrats in '08...

Dennis, Tennessee, USA

The price of crude is currently $80 per barrel.
Iraq has 115 Billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
Thats 9 Trillion dollars at todays prices.
Prices could reach $180 in the next five years five years and then the reserves would be worth $20 Trillion.

Donald, London,

I think everyone has said or said almost everything about the reasons for the attack on Iraq.But perhaps no one has said that it is the pathology of the American election $ystem and the insufficient awareness and helplessness of thinking Americans that twice inflicted on the world an ex-alcholic without intelligence, compassion or wisdom to be the world's most powerful man.
I hope that this sorry example of the present American president will caution the U.S.A. and all countries in the world to choose leaders for their intelligence, compassion and wisdom.

San Ying, Montreal, Canada

Right On Target! Greenspan should stick to what he knows best.

DanS, Denver, Colorado

Bubbles Greenspin was prudent? He kept the bubble going for the bankers.

Alan Heaton, Frankfurt, germany

I have been telling everyone for years that the Bushies started the war in order to get rid of Saddam because it was he who blocked the west from getting a toehold into Iraqui oil. He was an obstacle that neeede to be removed. At the beginning of the war, Saddam was the sole target of missile attacks that failed to get him. Does anyone recall that ?

Hurray for Greenspan for telling the truth about the real reason behind why Bush started the war with excuses no-one could believe and were all eventually revealed for what they were, pure fabrications.

Chuck Hauver, Mesa, Arizona

So, is Alan Greenspan alleging that he was privy to the high-level discussions and debates prior to the allies' invasion of Iraq? Or is he dealing a low blow because his green eyeshades give him tunnel vision?

If the former he should say what part he had in either supporting or opposing the Iraq War decision; if the latter Greenspan comes off as nothing more than a "useful tool" for Radical Leftists.

What I'm curious about is whether or not anti-Bush TV talking heads are going to push Greenspan's one sentence remark wholly out of proportion on the Sunday "one hour of Hate Bush" programs, only for the really informed to wake up on Monday and read that Greenspan's remarks were taken out of context for purely political motives.

Randy, Austin, TX

No one really thought Saddam had WMD's. The inspectors said he didn't, his son in law said he had destroyed them. Clinton bombed him every second or third day for eight years. He couldn't even get supplies to fix Iraq's destroyed water purification system. People who really knew what was going on , knew damned well that Saddam and Iraq were no threat to anyone. Just as Iran is no threat to anyone today. That will not stop Bush. Just as America had to invade the Phillipines, and overthrow the Hawaiian government., along with many others. We don't go to war because we are threatened, like Rome and Britain we conquer because we can and because we have power mad leaders. Let us hope and pray we can change before we fall, like all other greedy imperialistic nations have before us.

Melissa, Wilton, CA

No, Saddam was proved to be unable to control oil, after he invaded Kuwait, and attacked Iran. He NEVER even tried. Sadly becoming so clear this Bush just does not understand what he is doing. The military accomplished its mission in 2 months. Iraq could have been built just like So Korea, but the political decisions after the victory are all wrong. Allowing looting, then expecting respect! Allowing Saddam's face to continue on currency. Failing to build infrastructure, and by the way, failing to provide fair protection for our troops. Compare this to the strategies in :"how to eat soup with a spoon"

patrick sullivan, brooklyn, ny

It's about time some one of importance is telling the

truth. Most have known this for years. Bush,

is the worst President ever

James Elam, HOT SPRINGS, AR

Greenspan will be seen as a fairly disasterous Fed Chairman when history reflects on it. We are beginning to reap the whirlwind of his super lax monetary policies that have bred sequential bubbles and weakened the US and its currency. He did this to court his political masters. So much for the Fed's independence. But he is correct in saying that oil was a prime driver of Iraq policy and the weapons of mass destruction were an essential aid in selling the program. Greenspan may have not had anything to do with WMD but he fostered the insane growth of derivatives - aka WWD - weapons of wealth destruction Warren Buffett called them.

oldasiahand, Manila, Philippines

Anybody who says that the US went to war in Iraq to promote democracy is not a serious person. That's like saying we entered WWII to promote democracy in Germany and Japan which is exactly what these same people would have you believe. Absolute non-sense!

There obviously was no hard evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but we went to war anyhow. It's possible that some members of Team Bush believed their own lies but the rest knew they were taking this country to war based on lies.

That leaves oil with one exception. The neo-cons, who had their own agenda, convinced Bush that he was destined to be a great war President. But to be a war President you need a war. So he started one.

Jack O'Rourke, Narragansett, RI

Saddam's defiance because he would not give up weapons of mass destruction he did not have? Lame excuse. As for the claim that many nations opposed to war believed him to possess those weapons, that was based largely on the doctored US intelligence. The man was a dictator and a mass murderer, but I saw a trapped rat not a defiant dictator. I will concede that oil was not the only motive, but it certainly was a strong factor; so was giving billions of dollars of contracts to supporters of the administration and the projection of US power. Wars are rarely about just one thing. Let's not forget that Saddam was virtually left with no airforce after 1991 and that there were many news reports throughout the 1990s of Allied planes bombing this or that installation in Irak because they had allegedly been targeted and fired upon from the ground (no planes were ever hit). With the Allies controlling the Iraqi skies and satellite surveillance it's hard to see how Saddam posed a serious threat

Name Withheld, Fairfax, USA

You know those news clips you see once or twice at the most, then they are dumped? Here are two I think speak volumes about this war in Iraq. The first was Collen Powell during an media interview he stated "well, if you people would stop driving all those suv's out there".

Another statement that seal's the two reasons why we are there. G.W. Bush when asked why we were after Saddam "Well, he did try to kill my daddy".

You think about these two statements combined with Greenspans thoughtful statements and see where you end up.

Tim, AuGres, USA/Mi

It is clear that the US has followed the Realist model of acting in the interests of its own security. To this end both Power and Oil are key to this aim. With Us sources of oil now very low it is important that if they wish to be the dominant economic power then the US has no alternative but to pursue policies that ensure an external sourse of oil.

David Simmons, Pinner, Middlesex, United Kingdom

I'm getting quite sick of the regular meme trotted out by iraq war apologists that "even countries opposed to the war believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" - yes, some countries did. And why? Because they made the mistake of believing the cherry-picked intelligence that had been fed to them by the United States.

David, Stockholm, Sweden

Interesting but wrong. Perception trumps reality. The sales pitch thus the perception at the time was WMD. Whereas the reality was and is oil.

R Brandes, Fredericksburg, TX

"...but even countries opposed to the war believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

Specifically, which other countries believed that? Actually that was the very reason why other European countries did not join Irak invasion! Because they did NOT believe Collin Powell's spinned 'fairy tale' in the UN proceeding the agression. Thier intelligence data drastically differed from what he then said and that's why they did not join the war club. Too simple to be a truth?

Jaroslaw, New York, USA

While Bush may very well have had the Country's best interest in mind, there are many who believe fighting a war to stablize oil supplies is not in the Country's best interest and will not stabilze oil supplies.

Why do so many "Conservatives" insist the free market will solve all of our problems, and then abandon that philosophy when it comes oil.

The bottom line is America has resouces within its borders. We must learn that in the end we can only truly rely on those resources, and all other resources are luxuries to be purchased, if we can. We must accept the fact that other countries may have resources we would like to have but do not, and possibly cannot afford.

We have absloutely no right to invade another country to protect our access to that country's resources. We must either buy the resource in whatever market is available, or do without. Otherwise, like Roman and the British Empires we will come to rely on our military to supply our resources.

MPayne, Rock Hill, SC

Mr. Greenspan has it wrong and so do most of the so called experts and commentators. The Iraqi invasion was done for Israel and Israel alone, and has nothing to do wit\h oil, power or any other things. It has to do only with Israel and the Jewish control of America.
One must not be afraid to say such things if we are to remain a democracy of some sort any more.
Being Jewish, Mr, Greenspan will never say that the war against Iraq was about Israel and the dominance of the American political system by Zionist and the Israeli spies.
If Israel did not exist there will never have been an invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan,never.

It is Israel l,keep a very close eye on that snake of a country,the end might just, just might come from those international terrorist that run Israel some day.

vespasianus, Paramus n.j, UNITED STATES

FYI Mr Greenspan is married to leftist leaning NBC news correspondent Andrea Mitchell and her fingerprints are all over this.

Richard A. Higgins, Arrowsic , USA

"but even countries opposed to the war believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
But even countries supporting the war did not really believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destrcuion.

Pierre, Paris, France

What is formulated as an answer to Mr. Grrenspan's remarks about "oil the reason for war" isn't an asnwer at all.
It is about categorizing the critics of this war in a patronizing form.

After all I simply assume, that Greenspan knows a bit more than the authour of this article.

PS: Excuse my english

Peter Vernunft, Berlin, Germany

"Many US conservatives opposed the war."
Who? When? How (loudly)?

Pierre, Paris, France

They barely leave his mouth and the words are spun already. He said largely, not entirely. I would say that Greenspan knows money better than you, so maybe he is right about big government spending and the need to secure oil for our own financial well being.

Saddam was dead before they even declared war, and that brings no justice.

Deceit is the "worst big government activity of all", not war.

It is war that deposes them.

foramerica, Southland, tx

it's a sickening combination of oil, power and governance.

Lance Silver, philadelphia, usa pa

Our nation depends on oil and a significant part of that supply comes from the Middle East. Any sensible person would acknowledge that an unstable Middle East jeopardizes the free trade of oil. So OF COURSE the stabilization of the region included the "oil factor".

While there have been (unnecessary) statements in response to the far Left's foolish accusation that we went to Iraq to steal their oil, I have not seen any official denial that the stabilization of the oil supply was not an important objective of the War in Iraq.

While his statement is true at its base, Greenspan had to have known how it would be distilled and diseminated by the media, whose only objective is to destroy Bush and return power to the Democrats.

Right or wrong, Bush's decision to engage Saddaam and world terror had the country's interests in mind. The Media's decision to undermine everything this country stands for has no such noble motivation.

Ounceoflogic, Cincinnati, OH

Rubbish.

It's about Oil, Empire and Corporate Power, and anyone who can look at the preponderance of facts, those that came BEFORE 9/11, knows it. I don't mean Capitalism.... Corporatism.

Capitalism is amoral and can, and does, do good, although Corporatists rip off that identification, because most folks can't, or won't discern the difference.

Corporatism is immoral, and often linked to a couple of much maligned European "leaders" who came to power, leading up to WWII.

But the view expressed in this comment, is designed for the palate of those who believe the spin machine of the media.

Interesting.... we won't eat food that others have chewed before us, but we'll swallow ideas that are "pre-masticated" by others, and not even think twice about it.

Sad.

DJ, Kansas City, MO