The ignorance of this....

....The guy has always been a classic political liberal, ...


...was stunning. God help us all.

EJ, New York

E Jenkins, Huntington , USA, NY

The spice must flow

Baron Harkonnen, Arakis,

LOL, I love it, Greenspan was a hero now he's a goat. God Loves Republicans.

Harold, Greenwood, IN

I guess this is from the "Well-no-duhh" dept. Thanks Al, for enlightening us. Do you have to state publicly that the sun rises in the east in order for it to be true, too?

Matt, Rochester, NY, USA

Many say the first gulf war was about oil too, Saudi and Kuwaiti oil. Why do we not protect people from 'rogue regimes' in Sudan? Not enough oil?

Brad Smith, Long Beach, US/CA

Mr. Greenspan will, of course, maintain that during his days at the FR it would have been inappropriate for him to make these declarations of the truth that has been obvious to millions of us voiceless "ordinaries" since the invasion. The global importance of this issue is such that it supersedes by far the importance of Greenspan keeping or not keeping his job. We all knew it was about oil but, as I noted above, had no voice that was allowed to be heard. Mr. Greenspan's almost un-equalled credibility would have made his statements immensely powerful. He owed it to us then......he shirked.

Weston Cain, Overland Park, Kansas

Bush is aggressive ,who intends to control the whole world, that's impossible.

Carrie, Shanghai, China

There is no profit in deceit. The love of money is the root of all evil. Nobody loves money more than Big OiL.....

Cosmic Cat, Houston, USA/TX

We did not need a n american republican to tell us that. The antiwar campaign has been saying it for years.

IZHAR, aberdeen,

Let's see: we bombed Saddam back to the stone age in GW1. Then we patrolled his skies for roughly 10 years prior to GW2. We knew everything going on inside the country and the evidence shows it had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs. That makes Greenspan's conclusion all the more plausible.

Scott, somerset, Kentucky/USA

It is always sad to see when a highly educated man attempts to cover up his errors. Good ole Alan, who kept the interest rates too low for too long fed this financial bubble to the bursting point. He knew what his legacy would be when he handed the baton to Ben.

Someone needs to explain to people like Alan and Jimmy Carter than when you reach 80 and are "retired" you are supposed to go away, enjoy the rest of your life out of the limelight and let us deal with what you left behind.

Mark Hansen, Lindstrom, USA

That's what the upcoming war with Iran will be about as well.

Dick Richards, Daytona Beach, FL, USA

Finally.

KR, Chicago, USA

Alan Greenspan is courageous and is coming out verbally to save America. As the head of the Federal Reserve he had everyone's trust and I pray that the Republican Party wakes up and realizes that they have been following a crazed President who probably should have stuck to cheerleading.
America, once praised by President Reagan as a "shining city on a hill" has become prisoner to a Darth Vader like President who is dripping with oil and blood.
THANK YOU ALAN GREENSPAN - WE STILL HAVE TIME.

Leon W. Fainstadt, Los Angeles, California, USA

Its incredulous that anyone would not think that oil was the key motive for our invasion of Iraq. And it is even more so that we are still discussing why we went to war 4 1/2 years afterwards. Our reasons for going to war in Iraq are as old as history - simply put "conquer and plunder". During the "conquer" phase, a weak target is selected that has something you want - you then beat the hell out of them and later strut around flaunting your mettle. We saw this from Mr. Bush with "Mission Accomplished" and "Bring 'em on". But the real payoff is when you can loot their stuff - in this case oil. People might remember phrases such as "Iraqui oil will pay for the reconstruction", "$20 a barrel oil", and such. This was the administration's *real* energy policy. And its not without precedent - we did the same thing to the Spanish during the Spanish-American war, the Mexicans during the Mexican-American war and and certainly the American Indians during the Indian wars.

Warren Trimble, Grand Haven, MI, US

So much for the "free market system" that the hypocrite Republicans keep espousing.

Lat, Columbia, IL

This is not a revelation. But thanks anyway Mr Greenspan. Every person with one ounce of common sense knew all along that President Bush invaded Iraq not to improve the lives of Iraqis, something which is currently all over our tv sets every night, but rather he launched the war in order to rob the Iraqis of their oil, something which is not for all to see on their tv sets. As Rumsfeld would say: some knowns are unknowns.

Z Hussain, Rochdale, UK

Greenspan was NOT as widely admired as you have been lead to believe. In fact, he is now being seen as the blame for today's turmoil in the housing bubble and sub-prime mortgage crisis. The man is beginning to show signs of senility.

PJD, Sugarloaf Key, Fl, USA

The UN inspectors looked for years and found no WMD, all they could find was oil. Sadam said he had no WMD all he had was oil and since the blockaid they had nobody to sell it to. So American needs oil and we used up all of oil, why not just go and take the oil from Iraq? It all makes sense to me. Finally somebody in the goverment is saying what it is really all about.

John, New Haven, ct.

Real Politik: The modern Western World exists because of oil. It was unacceptable to have a lunatic megalomaniac like Saddam Hussein controlling the heart & blood supply of the Western World. Secondly, State supporters of Terrorism in the Arab World needed to understand that America was not just a "Paper Tiger", and that there will be consequences from any continued attack on America's vital interests...

Mike G., SF, California

Get ready for the Reich-Wing character assault against Mr. Greenspan. How many "insiders", who share their accurate negative views about this president , does it take before you "dead-ender" supporters of Bush put your country before your party??

Alex, Bronx, NY

Hmm, not sure that any evidence has been presented that Saddam was threatening to cut off oil supplies to the West .. after all, the opposite was discovered, that he was quick to make sweetheart deals with France, Germany and others (only the U.S. clearly rebuked those offers for cheap oil in exchange for turning its eyes from Saddam's bloodletting). But if a smoking gun is indeed found that Saddam had threatened this, then the war is far more justified than I had heretofore fathomed.

Robert Allen, Arlington, Virginia

Wouldn't it be a weapon of mass destruction if we could not get oil from the Middle East. It would cripple us economically. Why is Greenspan twisting the truth?

KS, Davie , FL

Oh. Wow. Greenspan? That's awesome.
Now, is anyone going to read this, or are they worried about if Britney Spears' career is over.

Pete Hagen, Philadelphia, PA. United States Of America

People throughout the world know that the war was for oil. Where information has flowed freely about the war, there is no other reasonable conclusion. However, only in the United States, where the people have been massively propagandized, not only by their government, but also by a complicit mass media, are there still people who believe that the war was for "WMDs".... and then when that rationale proved to be false, about "democractizing the middle east" --a ridiculous notion for anyone familiar with the nation of Iraq. Bush and his oil clique have brought a genuine HOLOCAUST to the people of Iraq. All for stealing the oil from a third world country. There are now an estimated 900,000 dead innocent cilivian Iraqis and almost 6,000,000 homeless refugees. The country has been laid waste, and the infrastructure and economy destroyed. Truly, sadly, Iraq was better off under Saddam than it is under Bush. That's a Nazi-like legacy for our country to bear well into the future.

Dan Cobb, Baltimore, MD

War crimes are a possibility if true?

James Lundholm, Fredericksburg, USA/Virginia

For years I've always heard that besides the Clintons, Greenspan was the smartest person in the world. Well he opens his mouth an shows the world he is an idoit. He is spouting the democrat's talking points all over again. If he is a Republican I'm a card carring communist. He damned near wrecked the country with his interest rates, not he wants to wreck it with lies.

L. E. Liesner, Alamogordo, New Mexico

He is just trying to pump up book sales. You need sometime to sell books. Meanwhile he is smoking cigars with Bush's friends at the local boys club. He is laughing all the way to the bank.

Dusty, beantown, ma

Of course it's about the oil, it's certainly not about the sand!

Gaetan Pozsgay, Kitimat BC, Canada

Surprise, surprise, are we all really in denial that oil was not the real reason to invade Iraq?

W. Oliver Walsh, Silver Spring, Maryland USA

What did everyone think the war was for? If we were truly in the business of establishing freedom and democracy in other countries, we'd start in Africa and Russia, where human rights are meaningless in many places.

I am always suprised how this comes as such as shock to people.

John Goodfellow, Puxton, ME

The only reason Alan Greenspan has "shaken" the White House is that finally someone associated with the Bush Administration (in his case peripherally) has spoken the truth about why Bush illegally invaded Iraq.

Next.

Craig Faanes, Falls Church, Virginia, USA

As much as I agreed with Mr. Greespan, he was part of the problem, he had the power in his own way to influence the decision making process of the the Bush Administration. Especially if the reason to go to war is for economic .

A. Sesay, Los Angeles, California

Jesse, you are so right, I thought I was getting that in the bible, you know, specific quotes, dates, times, etc., that were backed up by facts and evidence. Oh wait, the bible doesn't give us that, but for some reason a lot of people still believe in Jesus. How about that!

A little faith here, a little calling for absolute cold hard irrefutable evidence there, that's not being hypocritical or anything!

Tony, Bakersfield , USA, CA

It is not a news for anyone. The problem is US oil dependency and foreign policy (from my european point of view). I do not think the americans have learn a lesson, this can happen again.

Emmanuel, Craigavon, United Kingdom

It's about time. Thank you Alan G. He must have read "Crossing the Rubicon-The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" by Michael Ruppert.

Richard, Morrilton, Arkansas

Jeez, kinda kicked in an open door there didnt you Greenspan?

Karl, gellivare, Sweden

While a lot of people are saying this is old news, how about a little more 'original thinking'? If it's a resource war, which I believe it is, how important is that oil to us? Increasing world demand for oil, flattened out production... that oil is INCREDIBLY important to us. Not to mention the war profiteering that's going on. So if it's incredibly important and a lot of money is being made from it, is it really a stretch to think that the people who are profiting could stage a 9-11?

Mike S, Santa cruz, Ca, US

Mr. Greenspan is a man of stature whose opinions are respected. What a shame that he waited this long to add the authority of his voice to weigh in on the war.

We have now spent the blood of nearly 4,000 young Americans and untold numbers of Iraqis in exchange for Iraqi oil.

Do you really think it is worth it, America? Wouldn't most decent people pay twice the price of a gallon of gas if it meant saving the life of one young soldier?

Let's get out of this war, now!

Phyllis Corzine, St. Louis, MO

Phyllis Corzine, St. Louis, MO

So who cares what Greenspan thinks........
if he truly believes what he is saying and not just trying to sell his new book he should have taken a stand a number of years ago. I think about everyone just wants to bash Bush. That is ok, but the important people, now, are our young men and woman who are dying every day, so that we all continue to have the freedom to sit here at the computer making our comments. God Bless them....

Del, Powell,

It is a great thing to protect the world's oil supplies. But, if you think this is a bad thing, then you should be calling for Greenspan's ugly head on a platter. If he knew this and didn't speak up BEFORE massive casualties, you Bash-haters should be stomping mad at him.

Allan McConnell, Birmingham, USA / Alabama

I'll wait until I have read the book before deciding what I think of Greenspan. We must remember that we are being informed by about as an anti american source as you can find and experts at distorting o"out of context"" tosuit their own agenda.

Theodore E. Hastings, Williamsburg, Ohio

Really, Urr Duhhhh Oil you say,

Richie, phoenixville, usa

Spoken like a true zionist.

Tom, Phoenix, AZ

I find it ridiculous that there is shock in the first place. It is stated as if going to war over oil interests is offensive. We drive our cars, heat our homes, run our factories, and protect our country with an undeniable dependence on fuel. Yet some people find the whole idea of protecting our interests involved in this dependence, through war, as provocative.

Rich, North Providence, RI

Nothing less than the impeachment of Bush and Cheney would even begin to satisfy me.

All i have to say is: "Goodbye Republicans!"

Todd, Tarzana, USA/CA

Oh Anne of London, you are so right about our dependency on oil but that is not the point. We were told by clueless George that we were there to fight terrorisn. Remember? Lying is bad bad bad. If we lost out on all the oil in the middle east I truly believe that we would overcome this somehow and someway through, ha ha, capitalism.

Darrell, West Columbia , South Carolina

Anne in London, U.K.
I am dependent on food, cash, clothing, and shelter and utilities.
I do not take a gun and rob and kill people to acquire them!!
The U.S. and U.K. could just buy the damn oil! As a result of the stupid war, the price of not only oil, but all goods has skyrocketed. How much oil do you suppse could have been bought with the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on this ill-begotten war?
Not to mention all the people killed and families destroyed and left homeless!

Bob, Mineola, USA/Texas

I've deployed to that forsaken part of the world too many times and seen too many of my friends die because of oil? 'cmon...say it isn't so... while we pay historical prices at the pump, oil companies report Guinness-record-setting earnings and the Nation keeps on political seesaw I just wonder...who really had the Weapons of Mass Distruction?, Saddam or the guy who sits at his desk in the oval office?

Ed, Fort Hod / TX, US

R. Hunt of Hunt oil was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board by his close friend George Bush signed an oil agreement with the Kurds. You are right Mr. Greenspan, it is the blood of our soldiers for oil. It is time to impeach.

Vegan, Las Vegas, NV

You have to be an idiot not to realize that the free flow of oil from the middle east isn't important, Dang right it was about oil and if anyone has a problem with it, sell your cars and lawn mowers and drop out ot the real world, The spin the media wants you to believe is the war was for someone or groups personal profit with oil, that is so far from the truth it takes only an idiot to follow that line.

R. Lee, Otwell, IN, USA

The shocking thing about this article is not that this country was taken to war over oil, but that someone in authority has actually told the truth about it. Now, I would like to see someone take to task John Kerry for making the statement in Austin Texas (it is on video ) that building 7 at the world trade center was intentionally "pulled". How was that possible without any fore knowledge of the event? And, why would anyone "pull" the building with people and documents still inside? Why don't you all answer that one?

Ann Threlkeld, Cordova, USA /TN

I think the motive of Iraq war is robbing Oil in Iraq, and control the oil supply in Middle East.George W Bush is the bigget terrorist.

Carrie, Shanghai, China

Thankyou Mr. Greenspan. After a long life of "public service" you now decide it's time to serve the public. Your true colors are begining to show through your facade.

tony, Osborne,

Finally, we can begin to turn the page on the mutterings of Alan Greenspan. The page has turned, and frankly it is high time.

David W. Lincoln, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

The war is for Oil, and nothing more. This is a known fact, thanks for being on the inside, and letting the common folk in on what we have always suspected....corrupt OIL men running the US...gas was 1.40 something before Bush took office...enough said

Dan, Abq, USA, NM

Richard,

You can't impeach Bush because Republicans backs him up 100%. The Democrats lack the necessary vote in the Senate and Congress to impeach Bush. It's time to make sure the Dems have 3/4 majority of both houses so any Reps that get elected as President can't do stupid acts.

Bobdu, Lodi, California

Hey Anne from London, so it's a might makes right deal, then? We need the oil, so it's okay that we slaughter men, women and children to get it. Is that what I'm hearing from you? Look in the mirror... look at your family... how can you live with yourself?

Will, Clemson, South Carolina

The is a very good documentry out there , called
A Crude Awakening ...

db, to, canada

Get smart. Even if it was to protect the continuing flow of oil to the International community, behind that is the protection of the free nations of the world who depend on oil, including Asian nations.

If you want an Islamic stranglehold plus a Socialist stranglehold on the World, leave oil in the hands of Muslims, Russians, and Venezuela. Then what comes next?

The Chaplain, Dallas, Texas, USA

How would Greenspan know? He doesn't sit on the US Cabinet, isn't a part of the U.K. government either. He wasn't privy to any of the pre-war or post-war intelligence. He couldn't know....he's just speculating as so many do who also have no idea.

Amanda, Dallas, USA

If this is true then wher is the cheap oil? Why is oil at 80.00 per barrel if we only went in to steal the oil?

Dave, Huntsville, USA/AL

I find it funny how those who find the effort to secure the free flow of oil so evil. Immediately after voicing their disgust they exit their air conditioned homes and get in the air-conditioned cars to head over to the air-conditioned mall to buy some nice lil things that are made using oil. The middle east is a terror powder keg ruled by medieval tyrants that also controls most of the worlds energy reserves. I am all for bringing these people and their governments in to the modern world and democracy by use of force if dpilomacy fails. The alternative is frightening.

Bill, Coral Springs, FL

Of course the war was about oil as most wars are based only on economic factors but these reasons are always hidden by propaganda about patriotism, democracy , and the evil deeds and policies of the other politicians.

Ron Holland, Editor FreedomFest News , Mars Hill, USA

Greenspan should stick to economics and stay out of foreign policy and politics. He helped get Clinton elected before by raising interest rates until they pushed us into a recession and he is trying to help elect another Clinton now.

Patti, Columbia, SC

About oil - for or against oil production?

America has not yet been successful in getting Iraq's oil exports increased significantly.

However, America has been successful in limiting oil exports there.

Have not both actions been the strategy?

Michael, Pineville, Louisiana, US

I am not convinced that WT7 being "pulled" on 09-11-01 was accidental, I am rather convinced that our world as we knew once is coming to an end. The Bush administration is not telling us everything.

Concerned in Florida, Clearwater, Fl

I'm surprised that Alan Greenspan would make any statements against the Bush regime since Greenspan was under orders from the White House and was the architect of
"make the American people struggle," a policy that Greenspan passed on to his successor, Ben Bernanke.

Komodo, Bartow, Florida, USA

Freedom isn't free. It costs about three bucks a gallon. All hail the "Blood For Oil" policy.

Joe, Renfrew, PA,

I'm sure oil was a part of the picture of the war in Iraq, but is that really a shock to anyone. Removing Saddam and family from power, stabilizing the area (for a secure Isreal) and battling Al- Qaeda were also part of the picture.

Paul B., west kennebunk, me, usa

I like Greenspan, decent enough fellow. But "saddened that it is polically inconvenient to acknowlege.... that the Iraq war is about oil." Parsing that sentence is about as easy as working out a Rubik's cube. It is politically inconvenient that the US depends on a vital resource from a region of political instability. His remark would create controversy if he were the final arbiter of political actions, but he is not, his own opinion notwithstanding.

Well, once enough illegal aliens arrive that the US credit rating is ruined, it won't matter anyway. But that is too politically inconenient for the economist Greenspan to acknowlege.

Kent Betts, Fort Worth, TX, USA

So obvious it's a wonder anybody expresses surprise. What is often not pointed out is that the countries which would be hardest hit by an oil shortage would be the emerging economies, such as China and India.

mike sullivan, Guildford, UK, Surrey

Ya think? What kind of revelation is this? Of course it was about oil. You can't allow a megalomaniac (Hussein) & the world's worst lunatic fringe (Al Qaeda) to loiter around the world's gas station....especially after 9/11 woke us up. Sooner or later the two mix (as evidence shows they had started to do)....imagine the consequences. Any educated person should've been able to see the writing on that wall (strange that my old college professors didn't and are still child-like in their naïveté.) The invasion of Iraq was a wise decision...surprising to me because I'd regarded Bush as a simpleton. However, the occupation has been managed with all the trappings of idiocy, and I fault Bush with that.

John, Dallas, Texas

He's like the kid that shouted "the Emperor is naked". Everyone else sees the same, but is too ashamed or fearful to say. He was once too fearful to say too. But now he's retired on somewhere around $100 million (this book alone was advanced $8 million), he's fearless, politically un-assassinatable, that's why and how no dignitaries in the world can say what he does.

M , USA,

Anne of London , I assumed reading your post that you were a right wing Yank. What in God's name gives us the right to wage war and invade a sovereign country because they possess what we WANT.
That makes us no better than the terrorists we are supposed to be waging war on - and worse because we are hypocrites who claim to act for peace.
Even right wingers admit that our war in Iraq has boosted al Quaida beyond their wildest dreams....
and Iran is next I suppose
God Help Us

Dave Moorcraft, Penarth , Wales,

What a joke! Greenspan makes a last gasp to grab attention. He has been known as a committed leftist. He did his job, some say not so well (sub prime mortgage crisis anyone - making money too easy to get). Now he's out. He complains. He makes allegations from a position that is no more informed than any reporter would be. He's NOT a part of the government that gets intelligence briefings. He was NEVER in a security meeting. The previous President (Clinton) had the SAME intelligence as did this President GW Bush. It's all a political game, for timing and for Democratic gain in polls. As pointed out ALREADY, middle east oil accounts for a very small percentage of our use. This claim fits perfectly with conspiracy theorists who will use it as "evidence" when, in fact, it is only the opinion of an aging, bitter man who was NEVER on the inside track of foreign policy or security.

Greenspan's credibility on this is just slightly above that of OJ Simpson's conspiracy charges.

Kurt, Burnsville, MN

And there is something wrong with insuring the stability of the supply of oil? If that is how you feel, it is only to be expected that you will today cease to drive a car and only use forms of transportation that do not include the use of oil. Start walking!

Jerry Mercer, Auburn, CA

He is hiding behind the Fed. Reserve's motive, being that Hussein was about to quit using the FR Notes and go to the Euro.

brian nelson, Modesto, California

Shame !! Shame ! If Mr Greenapan is correct, then, the President has hoodwinked his people and the world with lies upon lies, which could motion a step forward towards impeachment and further more towards a world court absentee trial.
These last few days has been like a ball of wool becoming untangled, one can only wonder why stay in Iraq a day longer, perhaps it is most imperative that all troops are withdrawn immediately before another life is lost, each lost man in Iraq is worth more than a barrel of oil.

tom atkins, chilliwack, Canada

As you drive around in your car, handle plastic, take a flight, or do anything else possible through petroleum just keep telling yourself that oil is not important. Soon you will believe yourself.

DB, Lndon, UK

if it is not about oil what else could it be about?

marylandvoter, bowie , md

I don't see a problem. Fighting for oil is no different than fighting for food. Oil=Energy=Food/Water/Transportation=Survival. Get used to it.

Ralf, littlerock, TN

As an American, it is unsettling that I must read a report of this magnitude first in the British press. I am, however, grateful for the report. Greenspan with greater authority is echoing the assessment year's ago of former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. He also gives fuller context to reports from Princeton economist/columnist Paul Krugman about the profiteering with insider information by Ray L. Hunt, billionaire oilman, Bush crony and "advisor, and Halliburton board member. Finally, the evidence is mounting about the true motivations for the war... not simply OIL but OIL PROFITS for a few.

party-of-one, Miami, FL USA

Alan Greenspan has a real knack for stating the obvious. Still, it's good to hear it from a visible member of the A-list.

Elizabeth Shipman, La Canada, CA USA

Without oil Western Civilization will come to a grinding halt and then we'll proceed to starve to death. Furthermore, this adduction to oil puts us in direct contact with the Muslims.

The only alternative to endless war and the steady and relentless poisoning of our environment is nuclear power - nothing else will suffice. Nothing.

M. Bright, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

It was not a war for oil. It had political aims, most part of them not related with oil. If you want a cause just think in 11-S. Thats the begining of all. No matter if it's fair or not.

Guillermo, Madrid, Spain

Thank you Mr. Greenspan for your honesty and candor.

Michele, Olympia, WA

So now Greenspan joins the cander of the Austrialian Prime Minister. War in the name oil - 1million Iraqis killed to protect oil suppplies. This is the freedom, democracy the evil US talks about. No change in US record on human rights abuses, double talk, lies, murder and theft

Shaffiq Mahmood, Halifax, United Kindom

are you serious? I can't believe oil had anything to do with it.

wyatt butler, new berlin, usa/wi

Anyone who believes that is ever morally acceptable to kill others for financial gain is evil. Period. Call it "economic security" if you wish, it is still evil. Americans (and others, I know) have simply become lazy and spoiled and selfish. After all, even the poorest among us have become addicted to "stuff" like video games and fast food. What if we couldn't get that stuff anymore?! Scary! Better to just let the govt do its thing, while we walk around complaining. Sad, isn't it. I wish I could say I gave up my job security to do something about this situation, but the best I can do is vote. After all, I have LOTS of consumer debt to pay off, just like everyone else. Brilliant plan, leaders. Keep us afraid of financial ruin and we won't have time or energy to stand up against you. Makes me ashamed of myself and my country. I have finally taken steps to downsize my expenses so I can wean myself of the military-industrial-entertainment complex that is our "way of life."

Molly, Springfield, MO, USA

Yes, it was about oil. You betcha. Wubba wubba.
It was about keeping oil profits out of the hands of rogue nations (like Iran) AND keeping ungrateful American liberals well-supplied with iPods, X-Boxes, rap music, Britney videos and, oh, frivolous things like, electricity, gasoline, clothing and food. Oil is the lifeblood of any civilized nation (not just the U.S.) Get off the president's back on the fight against terrorism in the Middle East. It's a geopolitical chess game, not a simple game of checkers as the "die-in" crowd would have you believe.

Joe F., AL, USA

And if the war was for oil? Who cares. If you don't begin to clean up the middle east now we won't have the ability to discuss this later. And I suppose we crated the terrorists because of our foreign policy? And I suppose the religion of peace wants to wipe Israel off the map because of their foreign policy too? I think Michael Moore should be president, then at least I would sleep well at night knowing that not another child would be killed in school, not another terrorist attack would take place on US soil, and I would have free health care run by the same people that run our VA and Medicare systems.

Myles, Omaha,NE,

No one can doubt that anything involving the Middle East has to also include oil. For heavens sake we like all other countries need oil. When we went into Iraq we had proof that the United Nations and several countries inparticular were dealing illegally with Iraq for Oil and we are suppose to be ashamed that we had to go into Iraq before we were left high and dry by Europe to be destroyed by them and the Middle East terrorists? Get a grip world President Bush had the guts to tell the United Nations we were not going down with our heads hanging and our hands in our pockets. The world knows now America is still the land of the free and the home of the brave and with God's help we will once again be guided by God to elect a person who believes that America is based on the Judeo/Christian philosophy and will never be ruled by the United Nations and those who depend on it to destroy us.

Barbara O'Brien Arato, Huntington, LI, New York, New York , USA

Who really sheds any tears for such individuals when they are held accountable for their actions and behavior?

When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, or failed to take appropriate action accordingly when you held a specific position or post, stop acting surprised and shocked when you have to spend time in jail, or are forced to make financial restitution for the harm you caused to so many individuals.

You can attempt to buy your way into heaven all you want afterwards. At the end of the day, no matter how many ways you attempted to dress up or disguise manure; it’s still just plain old manure and people will treat it accordingly.

Joe Smith, Fairfax, US / VA

Oil is money. It is monopolized money. And of course, all wars are about money in one way or another. Control of it. So did we fight it for oil. Of course. But what can you do with that monopoly and that money? You can use it to buy more guns and steal more money. That's what Kuwait was about. Iraqis certainly weren't poor because Kuwaitis were living high on the hog. They were poor because Saddam had a system in place to keep everyone going in the same direction, a rarity in that land since before the Greco-Roman empires, and that system kept a lot of people at the bottom.

I don't think the Middle East will be shorn of its dictatorships until the oil is gone. Therefore, all wars fought in the Middle East will be "for oil."

Bill, Tacoma, USA, Washington State

I just want him to say, and we need to abolish the FED, I spoke out against it before I was in it, and having run it so many years, I'm totally convinced it doesn't solve any problems, just aggravates those we already have.

Casey, winsted, CT

If the spigots were actually opened in Iraq, then it would flood the world with cheap oil, causing trillions of dollars in losses to OPEC, and the Bush's and Cheney's friends, the oil companies. Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the world. Bush and his friends want to put a cap on it to keep the price of oil high.

Our soldiers REALLY are dying for OPEC. The reasons have always been a sham as proposed and amended by Bush and Co. The have been brainwashed that they are on some kind of "noble" crusade to bring democracy to the middle east. You only have to look at this new 'oil law'. Its a sham to turn over oil production to british and american oil companies and move 90 percent of the profits overseas.

Chris, Arlington, Va, USA

Amazingly a man, who by all accounts, served his country honorably now comes forward with some pretty damning critisisms of the Bush administration.
It seems to me that an "Honorable" man would have spoken up while he was part of the administration.

Alex McCartney, SpringValley, california, USA

Many of us in the States have been highly critical of Greenspan, and now this mockery of a Fed chief has certified our criticisms. This book is no doubt a way of Greenspan deflecting criticisms because his financial policies have created the sub-prime financial mess we (in the U.S.) are in now

Rick Pedraza, Loxahatchee, USA, Florida

Obviously, oil was a factor, in that Saddam's circumvention of sanctions was allowing him to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Should full sanctions have dropped and free oil sales be allowed, Saddam could have posed a formidable threat.

Greenspan's assertion makes no sense. Given how much the war has cost the US, it would have been cheaper to allow Iraqi exports to flow, which the US could purchase. His analysis is not new, but it is no more credible just because it comes from a Central Banker.

Bob von Rekowsky, Boston, MA

This is what we knew all along, but has now been verified.
Bush has never told the truth, not one day in his life.

J.D. Miller, Sherman, Texas

Charles Runyon, Rochester Hills, Michigan
"or they will start taking over countries like Egypt."

Thanks, but no thanks
After we saw the American virsion of Democracy in Iraq, Any one ruling Egypt would definitly do better.
Thank god Egypt does not export oil but remains with "lettuce and pickles"
Mr. Greenspan's statement is too late, and he is no longer in power and most of the people in the US don'y agree with Bush on the war. So, What is new? "Nothing"

Abdalla El Said, Cairo, Egypt

Lets see.........Saddam was still shooting at coalition aircraft, he tried to assassinate an ex-president, he was paying bounty for Israeli school children to be blown up, he was still exterminating Shites and Kurds, and his idea of torture was feeding people, feet first, into wood chippers. Also, if he didn't have WMD's, he deserves an Oscar for pretending that he did. HMMMM.....yeah the war was just a big mistake. Hey, when are our troops going to come home from Bosnia, Kosovo, Korea, Germany, Japan, and everywhere else? That was all a big mistake too.

Tyler Haines, Leesburg, US/Indiana

Someone stated that the first Bush would have invaded Iraq. Oil was only $18 per barrel prewar not $80 like today. Bush 1st listened to the CIA who predicted a civil war and would take 20 years to clean this mess up. He did not want blood on his hands unlike 2nd Bush. All the death and destruction he and Cheney caused will find them on judgement day.

Brian B, Madison ,

The WAR in Iraq ended when Bush stepped onto the decvk of the carrier Abraham Lincoln, and declared it over. Since then it has been a bloody occupation of a country larger than Texas, with troops not trained for Occupation and with numbers inadequate for the task.

The Occupation is about oil and support provided by Halliburton and its subsidiaries. Halliburton pays Cheney one million dollars a year of so-called retained earnings. Before the Occupation Halliburton had a 5 Billion dollar problem with more than 400 thousand asbestos related law suits, and the stock price was shrinking to less than 7 dollars a share. Two years after the Occupation began, Halliburton paid off all the asbestos cases in a giant settlement, 60% in cash and the balance in stock that had increased more than 4 times since the start of the Occupation. In addition to the large Cheney holdings, Bush Senior and partners own a large block of Halliburton shares.

Sam Lazarus, Williamsburg, Virginia

If Alan Greenspan and Liberals really think this war was for oil, why is gas at $3.00 per gallon instead of a buck twenty five? Why do we need their oil when most of our allies and Iraq's neighbors have more oil then we could ever need. I guess it was the Oil tankers that crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in PA...... people need to wake up. The terrorists and Islamic Facists have hated us LONG before Bush was ever in White House as evident of all the other terrorist attacks againt the US and it's intrests. Clinton had his chance to do something about and wimped out. He was to busy with Monica to take care of the country all the while trimming the Military.

Good Luck Liberals if you guys get in the White House. There will be attacks against us if you keep up your defeatist ways. We have not been attacked since 9/11 thanks to Bush and inspite of the Democrats efforts to weaken our defenses.

Oil, yea right !!!!!

Roy Kolaya, Elkhart, IN

Of course it's about oil. DUH! We all need it: I driving my car to work and Al Gore riding in a Gulfstream to global warming conferences. It was never about seizing Iraq's oil though, but rather stabilizing the supply from the whole region. If it had just been about seizing Iraq's, then the cost of the war would make it the most expensive oil ever - and why bother to occupy any part of Iraq other than the oil fields and terminals?
It was also about keeping oil revenues (and all that it can buy) out of the hands of nut-cases (and now, terrorists).

Ian Board, mission viejo, usa, california

Interesting how those who support this black helicopter consipiracy theory only say things like 'i knew it all along' and 'you have to be brain dead not to agree'. Really? One quote taken from this book (which may or may not be out of context) and your response is gleeful vindication? How sad it takes so little to count as proof for you. It's one person's opinion, offered with no proof or reasonable argument (just as yours is). If we wanted Iraq's oil, why aren't we taking it? Why wouldn't Bush have taken it long ago before taking such a big political hit over the war? You ignore the fact that weapons have been found there and weapons had been used there on the Iraqi people. You conveniently leave out that every Democrat leader (Clinton, Gore, Kerry & others) made statements that Saddam was a threat and had WMDs and needed to be disarmed. To not stand up to with the courage of your convictions (like Bush is doing) is lack of integrity, mr. halse. And Ivan, I have a full brain

adrian t., san diego, ca

I think the decision was made on a combination of factors. I believe the primary factor was based on faulty intelligence that Saddam had WMDs. The second factor was that Saddam's violation of all of the UN resolutions. And the third factor was to ward off the possibility of an oil crisis that would precipitate a world-wide financial crisis. I think GWB's biggest mistake was not going into this war with a well-planned strategy and manpower to win it. He miscalculated the response of the various Iraqui factions and Iran's support of a a destabilized Iraq.

Tom Mach, Lawrence, KS, USAs

What's shocking is that it's considered shocking to state the obvious about something. Of course the Iraq War is about oil. It's absurd to suggest that we would have anything at all to do with Iraq if it weren't sitting on top of some of the biggest known oil reserves in the world and surrounded by the world's top oil producing countries. That this is considered "news" points to the state of disconnection we live in today, between what is real and what is wishful thinking.

Jake Smithers, Natick, MA

Gee, Alan, thanks for not speaking out when it would have meant something: both on the invasion of Iraq and on Bush's "fiscal irresponsibility"--which is essentially a form of looting.
Isn't invading a country to seize control of its natural resources banned by international law and considered the quintessential war crime?
While Dubya was giving immense tax breaks to his rich cronies and bankrupting the country, you were covering up for his economic lunacy and helping to engineer his second election "victory".
Give my regards to Colin Powell who also decided that loyalty to the Republican Party was more important than loyalty to the American people--or even the human species.
Even as you two edge toward the exits on the worst American Presidency ever and distance yourself from the carnage, it's far from over.
You helped birth both the housing bubble and the Bush Presidency, and now you want to put them both up for adoption. Too bad you didn’t do something to abort them.

Randy Graham, Monterey, USA

Alan Greenspan had the blessing and benefit of being the Chair of the fed under Ronald Reagan. It was Ronald Reagan's economic polocies that began the economic recovery that made Alan Greenspan sucessful by assiciation. However, it was Reagan's polocies. As an unelected official, Greenspan didn't have nearly the power that people believe, nor that Alan Greenspan believes. For, now Greenspan believes that he has the power to read minds (i.e. the President's motive for the war in Iraq).

I think we've heard enought whining from Alan Greenspan. It's time for him to retire quietly.

Ken, Boynton Beach, FL

Like all liberals posing as Republicans, Greenspan wanted these headlines so that his book would leap to the top of the best seller lists! He's not fooling anyone. It's all about HIM.
He PRAISED Clinton! Does that tell you something about his
politics? Just another reason to abolish the federal reserve
and return to the gold standard! Where are you Jack Kemp?

Harold Carstensen, San Antonio , Texas

Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

Uh, there were no weapons of mass destruction that intentionally violated the United Nations sanctions and I believe the official report states that there was no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Why are we still there? Wasn't Iraq a soverign nation? We took it upon ourselves to replace their government? Well, Thank God, we didn't touch the oil!

Todd, Baltimore, MD

To those bending backwards to justify Iraq war on basis of protecting oil supply:so it`s okay to destabilise a sovereign nation, engender an environment where where anarchy reigns and murder for whatever reason is the daily norm- so that your vehicles can be on the road? It is a tragic logic.

ken, manchester, uk

Don't let them DIE for George Bush....bring home the TROOPS

Andy Levinson, thpusand oaks, ca

Well, duh. Oil makes the world go round. Do you really want to be without it? Really?

Ding Bentley, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Alan Greenspan should fold his tent ann fade away. Nothing constructive will appear from his ramblings.

Duane Olinger, Norman,

I have long known that this war is really about oil. Not just that Sadam Hussein posed a threat to our supply, but that America is out to control the oil supply. Nations with relatively primitive weapons have not risen up against America with its high-tech weapons for no reason. Why else would thousands of people be willing to engage in suicidal bloodshed if their countries were not being raped?

Alan, Lewes, USA

Didn't a leak already come out of the former Tony Blair admin already admit as such? I remember the media briefly reporting on that but then it disappeared from media reports quickly after that.

Even if Iraq had no oil, as Greenspan mentions, he threatened to disrupt the flow of oil in the region (ie. from his neighbors, not just Iraq's own oil).

Jeff M, Windham, New Hampshire, USA

Stablilizing the worlds energy supplies is critical to the entire world. I dont see anything wrong with solidifying the economical climate we live in to reduce other potential confrontations. Without that, we descend into some truely terrible scenarios, home and abroad. And now that war with Iran is being contemplated, will it also be considered for oil years afterwards, or as in Iraq, an attempt to stop a tyrant who leads his country toward nuclear showdown with the rest of the world.

Doug W., concord, USA/NC

Greenspan is a globalist banker, so we should not particularly value his moral outlook on international events, or look for his nod of approval to secure our national interests. That said, where is the break at the pump that we are supposed to benefit from? Greenspan is a dishonest political hack in his post fed chairman life. If he were not, he should point to defense industry war profiteering (ie Blackwater and Halliburton). But I'm sure he has friends making money off of those.

NEWORLDisORDER, Chicago, IL, USA

It is not what he says that matters; it is what he doesn`t say that does matter. these are proxy wars waged for the sake of the `Chosen`. Oil is the assassin`s fee.

Alper, Turkey,

another coward trying to make a buck.
if he really believed that the war was for oil then he should have said so and brought out the proof.

It makes me sick to my stomach when people like him come out with their books about what they know or think they know after the fact. If you have proof of something and do not step forward at the time then you are worse than the people you accuse. enjoy your money and your time on the so called talk shows. its cowards like you who are turning this country into what it is today.

rich gilstrap, st albans, vt

I have officially lost a lot of respect of AG. What a turkey-macaroon. Ayn Rand is rolling in her grave that her disciple has uttered such nonsense. Oil? Based on what empirical evidence? Shame on Mr. Greenspan.

Brad Reischer, Latrobe, PA

I wonder, will everyone lable Greenspan crazy too? Will the President and Cheney send out a Blackwater mercenary contractor hired from a Chilean death squad to kill his dogs and put poison in his backyard pool? Although these type of assaults have somewhat slowed since the Plame ordeal I am not sure it is in Greenspan's best interest to speak against the Bush Mafia. It has in too many cases cost those who speak out against their fleece job dearly.

SacrAmerican, North Highlands, California, USA

Right on point. 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

Were is the oil than.... Mr Magoo don't have an idea whats going on. Everyone is against Bush but we haven't bee attacked. The energy they are using to fight the president should be used to fight the enemies of this country.... We are not a Islamic nation yet and never will be. This is still the greatest country and the world and some Americans( Democrats/ liberals)hate it....! Well to bad

Jerry Balon, Georgetown, USA / IN

In answer to the question of where are all the oil companies and drillers they went running home about three years ago when is became obvious that there was no security to protect them. Before saying someone is talking nonsense check your own facts and look particularly at the operations of Halliburton.
As for Saddam having anything to do with 9/11 even the CIA admit that he was an enemy of Al Quada.

Fred, London, UK

Finally someone admits the truth... I am \ was a Republican until this head fake war..There may be hope for the party. The war has destabized the entire area.

Perry, West Chester, Ohio

Bring up Chamberlain is a waste of time. For liberals, history began yesterday...

Robert, Denver, USA

It has ALWAYS been about the oil; only a total moron is unable to understand that. DickNBush are simply following the goals of their masters in the oil and gas industry. Of course, like everything else these incompetents try, they have completely bungled the intended exploitation of Irag's oil. But DickNbush won't let that oil continue to slip through. That is why they are having the largest US embassy compound in the world build in Baghdad, and why they are building dozens of permanent US military bases throughout the country - to exploit the oil reserves as long as they last.

ALEX H., TUCSON/AZ,

I love how people discredit him categorically because he's an economics expert and not a military expert. But his claim has nothing to do with war itself, but the economic need for the United States to be at war. If gas prices rivaled those in Europe, our way of life and economy would be crippled. While that has nothing to do with war, it has everything to do with the need for war. It's the same old military industrial complex thing we've been embarassed to admit to for years, but with new jockey's at the helm. Brace yourselves.

Raoul Duke, Las Vegas, Nevada

It doesn't rocket sciencist to know the reason for invading Iqar was Oil, blood soaked oil.
The people who hijacked the planes were and from Saudi Arbia, not Iraq.

Gregory A , Louisville, KY, USA

It probably was about oil. Would you like to stabilize the region by causing collapse of Saddam and still be able to afford gas, or would you rather let the mad man cause your gas prices to soar to 7 or 8 dollars a gallon. I all for the war if we can keep gas prices lower. IN fact, why not just take over Iraq and all the oil in it. We could make our gas prices go back to a buck a gallon then. That would be great!

L, Colorado, USA

Of course! Nine out of ten Jews will agree that these wars have nothing to do with Israel.

Jeff, Taunton, USA

DUUUUH!!!!

I could of told Greenspan that in 2002 when the country was doing a war dance!

Jerry C Pogue, philadelphia, PA

I believe it was J.P. Morgan who said "People do things for two reasons, a good reason and the real reason" .The real reason O.I.L. Why else would Bush have built permanent US military bases or fomented sectarian divisions, were it not for an intended permanent presentce in the Middle East Oilfields. The "surge" is opium for US domestic consumption.

Jeremy, Westport, Ma

This is so contradictory. The obvious result of an Iraq war would be an increased risk factor, driving the cost of oil up. Hardly making Bush and Blair look good for securing our immediate energy reeds. How many intel briefings was he in on?

David, USA,

So what if its about oil....an evil man is out of power; that should count for something or should it not?

Sal Yarima, Savannah, GA

Gee-Gosh-What a pieceof news!! Like nobody knew that.The US could get rid of a dictator who killed,tortured and financed terrorism AND secure our national interest at the same time. THE PERFECT STORM!!! Where has Greenspan been?

Richard Levy, Manchester CT,

Like many of the other former members of this failed adminstration, Mr. Greenspan has waited to tell the truth; it pains me to think of how Greenspan and others (Colin Powell comes to mind) could have spoken up sooner and at least partially prevented the humanitarian and fiscal disaster created by the Iraq War. The entire Bush Administration is made up of opportunists, with nary a statesman in sight. I grieve for the America that I knew before these selfish and hypocritical people were allowed to squander our legacy.

james shannon, St. Paul, MN USA

Greenspan ios losing credibiltiy. He is just and old ,angry and bitter man is now influenced by is ultra left wing wife Ndrea Mitchell. He should just shut upu and enjoy his last days.

Nick, naples, usa

Greenspan is right. We all knew this in 2002. Oil control was the prime motive to invade Iraq. Rumsfeld and Cheney beneficaries via Halliburton lucrutive reconstruction, supply and oil contracts, the division of the spoils after the war. It did not happen that way though. North Korean had real WMD. Did Bush invade N Korea, it was not worth it? No. Case Closed!

Dave Oliver, London, UK

Of course it was the oil! Why else build the mammoth embassy in Baghdad?

Rachel Warburton, Kirkland, WA, USA

The motive for the war was twofold; oil and the security of Israel. And the result will be less of either.

R. Burton, Portland, Oregon

Going to war for access to oil is in the interest of the national security of the US. Without oil, our economy would collapse. If we were allowed to exploit our own oil reserves (like Mexico and Cuba do) we might not be dependent on foreign oil...all you liberal whiner, wake up and grwo up!

KC, Tucson, AZ

The free flow of oil at market prices is important, but what is more important is stopping Saddam from running his state run rape rooms, throwing men into plastic shredders in front of their families, and filling mass graves with casualties from his WMD, and also stopping Saddam from his corrupt "Oil for Food" program with Kofi Annan of the UN and France. If it was "all about oil" for anyone, it was Saddam, Kofi and France.

If you go back and read Bush's State of the Union Address, liberating Iraq and removing a madman who had used WMD on his own people were two of many very good reasons, all of which have been proven correct by history.

Frank, Fresno, CA

Could this "confession" from Mr. Greenspan have anything to do with his wanting to divert attention from the imminent economic crisis that he helped create. There never would have been the bulge in the subprime mortgage market if he hadn't made it so easy by lowering interest rates. Its not really news to most people that this war was and is about oil. Prices have been conistently high since the invasion, as have ExxonMobil's profits.

Nick, Arlington, VA, US

...and in 25-50 years from now, when the modern world effectively runs out of oil, and we are all thrust 200 years back into a brand new era of Dark Ages, we'll all wish we hadn't judged our leaders so harshly for trying to maintain the quality of life we all depend on so greatly.

Anthony Foust, Hollywood, California

So what? because it was not our oil. It belonged to Iraq. Yes, Iraq was headed by a greedy dictator. Guess the U.S. should invade Russia because we want their oil. Oh, I forgot they have nuclear weapons and might use them.

Having shown that the U.S. is willing to pre-emptively invade a country for what it wants, it's difficult to blame any country that wants nuclear weapons. Therin lies the difference between invading Iraq as opposed to invading Russia. We could invade Iraq without nuclear retaliation.

Look out Venezuela.

Charles Riley, Jacksonville, fl

greenspan is a rockefeller boy

alex jones, austin, tx

I am glad someone finally came out and said we went to Iraq for oil, but does it really matter that is the why we went there? If you ask me taking their oil is a better reason than taking over their country for some false sense of giving them freedom. People need to realize oil is a necessity for our way of life and that war may be the only way to get it.

Fred Schulze, Winona, Minnesota

Yeah so about those 13 consecutive interest rate increases....Greenie, they were clearly meant to prevent Republicans from having even greater growth in the economy.

/./and congrats for predicting the last 6 out of 1 recessions.

russ andrews, cumberland,

The heart of the wise man inclines to the right, while the heart of the fool leans left. - Ecclesiates.

King Solomon, the wisest many who ever lived, penned that truth a few thousand years ago.

Today, left leaning fools insult our miltary and four star generals - and truly believe we're not fighting the same evil animals in Iraq that would be over here much quicker if they didn't feel they had the opportunity to face us over there. Our heroes deserve better!

David Forman, North Haledon, NJ

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the flow of oil out of the gulf in the Middle East is that less than 20% of it comes to America, and the other 80+% of it goes to the far east and other places in the world. If that is the case than we have done wonders in helping China, Japan, etc. as well as Exxon, Chevron, Mobil, and the others who continue to do their banking outside the U.S. Mr. Bush has helped them out in the past year by giving them a special break on bringing their money back into the U.S. at a special 15% tax rate rather than the much higher rate a multi-billion dollar corporation should have paid.

Mike Mather, Twentynine Palms, California

Paragraph four, the short sentence, refers to oil supplies for the middle east. When did North America get to be known as the middle east? Smarten up, you extremist Liberals.

Cyrano de Bergerac, Hanover, NH

About oil - for or against oil production?

America has not yet been successful in getting Iraq's oil exports increased signicantly.

However, America has been successful in limiting oil exports there.

Have not both actions been the strategy?

Michael, Pineville, Louisiana, US

How are we to suppose that Greenspan has any more insite into the war than the White House or the Pentagon?

Just because he was the Federal Reserve chairman doesn't mean that he didn't get his information from the New York Times. The NYT is NOTORIOUSLY biased against Bush and the war.

I wish Greenspan would keep his opinions to himself. Everytime he opens his mouth the stock market drops a few hundreds points. And he's retired. That is too much power for one man to have.

Robert, Kansas City, Missouri

About time someone spoke the truth. I am sure the White House will claim he's just an OLD fool.

joe , Pittsburgh, PA

Of course it was about oil. So what? Nations have always gone to war to protect their vital interests. Saddam was a ruthless dictator who threatened the security of the region. Name me one other country, with the exception of Israel, that is not similarly ruled by one or by many of the same kind of people. Oil is food, security, and prosperity. Bravo Alan, how brave you are now making the case for what everyone with any sense knows.

joe Phillips, red rive , USA NM

I guess Mr. Greenspam figures this will sell more of his books

ToddonCapeCod, , MA, USA,

This is silly, the war in Iraq was an over-reaction to 9-11. Without 9-11, Iraq would've never happened.

Joe Moody, Saint Joseph, MI

There we have it: Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in court.

I will not hold my breath...

This makes a joke of the "West" in the rest of the world's eyes.

Don, Glasgow, Scotland

We did not need a n american republican to tell us that. The antiwar campaign has been saying it for years.

IZHAR, aberdeen,

Prezdint AWOL having a helpless Iraq invaded for its oil? Say it ain't so!

Bill Mac Bean, Klamath Falls, Oregon

Big deal. So the war is for oil, what is wrong with that? The US has long fought wars in the "national security interest". Nothing new except to blame a guy with a weird smirk.

John Leopold, Hoboken, USA/NJ

Executive order 39....

Says it all...

G. Wright, MiAMI.,

Let's see: we bombed Saddam back to the stone age in GW1. Then we patrolled his skies for roughly 10 years prior to GW2. We knew everything going on inside the country and the evidence shows it had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs. That makes Greenspan's conclusion all the more plausible.

Scott, somerset, Kentucky/USA

Is there anything wrong with protecting AMERICAN interests? If you want to maintain our high standard of living, our safety net, social security, health care and all the other things that Democrats talk about all the time, then we had better protect our oil supply, our dollar, and our borders.

Richard, Bakersfield, ca

This reveleation is from the "duh" file. If it was about getting bad guys North Korea would have been invaded first, then we would have gone and taken Mugabe out. But, alas, the citizenry in those places continue to suffer and the US, UN and the rest of the world choose to do nothing about it. Sigh.

DJD, Dublin, CA USA

Oh Greenspan why such untruth at $80.00 a barrel we sure are enjoying th benefit of easy Oil. Why is it these nuts are always against America.

Louie Gomez, Los Angeles, United States

Don't let our soldiers die for george bush...bring them home

Andy Levinson, thousand oaks, usa/california

So, Mr. Greenspan has stated what the all of the world (outside of the blind republican sheep) have always known. Too little too late. Where was he when it counted..........

John Ducote, New Orleans,

The U.S has not realized one dimes woth of oil as a result of its involvement in Iraq. Not one dime. So how was the war about Iraq oil?

bruce, Dublin, USA/Ohio

DUH!

Bobby, Sarasota , Florida

What's wrong with saving the mid-east oil supply ? Without oil
the free and growing economies of the world would decay and
we could all live in caves as do the Jihadist Muslims.

Bravo for George Bush.

Stanley Ellis, Ambler, PA

Mr. Greenspan's comments come as no surprise, since as he says, its something everyone knows, I'm just glad someone of his former position stated it so matter of factly.

Eric, Albany, United States

Scientists will eventually distill the formula to predict the exact moment when those in the know, like Greenspan and Bob McNamara, will issue the belated but obvious truth about the wars of their generation and their causing, belated by megadeaths, which for some yet unknown reason they could not bring themselves to utter in a timely fashion.

Proud Primate, Portland, Maine, USA

You're kding? The war in Iraq was about control of oil supplies? I would never have guessed!

Ron Jacobs, ASHEVILLE, USA

It's inconvenient for US/British authorities and official media to admit the truth about the war of aggression against Iraq because otherwise George W Bush, Anthony Blair and a number of their co-conspirators would have to go to jail.

Richard Cheeseman, Wellington, New Zealand

Ah yes! The war was about OIL! With record oil prices and hyper-inflated gas prices it makes PERFECT sense! How could I have been so blind....

Aidan, Ft Myers, FL

I am absolutely "shocked" that a President and Vice President with ties to oil and a country that gulps oil like water would go to war over the protection of their oil supply.

nin, Fredonia, NY

It's great to come out and make accusations but back them up. Where is the proof? It may very well be possible but give some evidence.

Andrea , Goodyear,

Finally, Mr Greenspan came out and told the real truth about the Iraq war. It's all about Texas and Mr Bush's friends in the oil business that got him elected all the way to the Presidency. It has absolutely nothing to do about terrorism, but the famous GOP greed for money and control.

viggoros, miami, fl

Truth has to come out one day. George Bush and his cronies will be judge for his crime against humanity in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Munna, London, UK

Mr Greenspan is 100% correct. It's always about the oil.

Bernard Berkoff, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

Who believes that invasion in iraq took place for humanitarian purposes? Or that saddam hussein had offensive nuclear weapons? If Iraq had no oil nothing would have happened and the US would never be involved. Many other countries on the globe are ruled by tyrans and no one cares! Millions of poor children die every year because of conflicts and famine and no one cares! Who believes the Bushes nowadays?

Nikos Kotis, athens-greece,

What is the secret? Saddam was spiting the US and selling oil to , Big Surprise, France and Germany for $.50 on the dollar.We boycotted France, and have not broadcast our punishment of Germany. Folks follow the dollar and you will find the answer. Greenspan is an economic genius,More importantly, he is a visionary and orator of the truth. Being in Washington for so long, it is good to see one can still survive and be REAL.

David, Danby, Vermont

Anything new?
Was there EVER any doubt?

Guenther Wolkenstein, Vienna/Austria,

For Dick Chency it was about oil but for Bush it ws
about revenge for his dad

Nat, Bronx, New York

Yes it was for oil and rightfully so.

Rick, Athens, Ga.

Greenspan has a book to sell. The oil price soared when Iraq was invaded. The US government knew this would happen. So how could the War be about cheaper oil? If that was all the US had wanted, it would have been better not to have invaded. The invasion of Iraq was about defeating a tyrant who had committed genocide.

Jonathan, London,

We knew it. Greenspan said it. Finally.

Adam, London, UK

'FInally, someone has told the truth'

The Australian Minister of Defense said ,last July ,that their involvement was all about the oil.

enzer, Dunedin, NZ

Who else to police the mideast and protect oil resources if not the Brits and the Yanks?

Arthur Shapiro, Sparks, Nevada/USA

The oil is under their sand, remember? If we take it by force, we are stealing. I don't know how the rest of your were taught, but I was always taught that that was a bad thing.

Debbie Hemmeter, Farmington Hills, MI

One of the "chosen people" shows his true colors and stabs America in the back yet again. Gee, what a surprise.

Bob, Cleveland, OH

If its about oil, why don't we invade Canada? Doesn't Canada have more oil reserves than Iraq?

Jeffrey, Kutztown, PA

That is the same reason we did NOT invade North Korea. That and the fact that North Koreans know how to fight.

bob chiss, marlton, usa / nj

How could the attack on Iraq and the removal of Hussein not have the effect of securing oil? How does Greenspan know what Bush, et al were REALLY thinking? Is there a memo or conversation...something...as support for the claim?

susan knight, fairplay, co

Thanks Al. Make the world and those lunatics on the left hate the United States even more. Good work.

J Sumner, New York, NY

Greenspan is losing credibiltiy. He is just an old ,angry and bitter man is now influenced by is ultra left wing wife Andrea Mitchell. He should just shut up and enjoy his last days.

Nick, naples, usa

Well... duh.

Gene, Pittsburgh, PA

It's about oil! Really! How is it that Greenspan cannot voice his amazing discovery much muchearlier and perhaps even save a lot of lives but can leave that till a book launch?

It's all about money?!

Fred Marshall, Milton Keynes, UK

Yea, I guess the 9/11 terrorists were flying around Manhattan looking for a gas station.
No, Bin Laden wants to take over all the 7/11's in the world.
How many people know many 81 year olds who know completely what they are talking about?

Red State Myers, Knoxville, TN

people will go to no end to embarrse the president

Howard, Lock Haven, USA

Of course it's about oil and oil IS our national security who don't know that.... But it is also about establishing a democracy that will protect our national security interest by not trying to kill all of us. Allen also seems to be having memory lapses about the Clinton administration. Hey Allen, it was Rubin under Clinton who said we couldn't balance the budget and it was Clinton who vetoed welfare reform 3 times before he was finally pressured to sign it and bring about that balanced budget. Perhaps Allen is having a senior moment. I wish he would do it in private and stop making himself look like the old fool that he clearly is. And perhaps he hasn't noticed that in spite of spending our deficit is declining, last number, 10% faster than predicted by the so-called experts like Allen.

C Potts, Chester Springs, PA

How would Greenspan know? He did not participate in any of the planning or discussions by the President and Secretary of Defense. He has seriously blundered by spouting this kind of speculation. He and his ilk cannot comprehend that deposing a murderous dictator that threatens world peace and replacing him with democracy is the right thing to do. So many of those who enjoy democracy today are willing to deny it to others, especially when their skin is not white. Democracy for the brown and black man really isn't worth fighting for in their view. But since they can't say that publicly, it becomes "We don't want to go to war for oil" and "Those people aren't ready for democracy." It is racism that wants to write off the Iraqis, the Middle East, and Africa and condemn them to brutal oppression and enslavement.

Mike Nelson, Santa Paula, CA

Say Folks ,this war is not about Iraq oil, it's about
using insufficient troops for years and the insecurity causes little oil to be shipped. This insures that the world Oil price stays high. the real word is corruption at the highest levels and the destabilization of a foreign government (Iraq) for profit.

merek, Molokai, Hi. USA

Although Greenspan may be right with respect to oil serving as the primary motivation for the Iraq invasion, he is certainly not relieved of his role in the mishandling of the U.S. economy and the problems with the sub-prime market. He shares a lot of the blame, but less of the blood.

Toki Wormtooth, Glasgow, Scotland

So what's new? The war with Iraq and soon to be followed Iran equation is: 1.) Power; 2.) Israel; 3.) Oil. Iraq was a major power player in the Middle East. With Iraq in a failed state status, this leaves a vacuum for Iran to emerge as the next regional power. Of course, Israel's Politicians are afraid for their interests and will do anything to assure Israel keeps her power advantage. Finally, it is in the interest of the big oil corporations to privatize Iraq's as well as Iran's oil (i.e. new "Oil Laws" demand in Iraq).

To Anne in UK. I am sorry to hear your indifference about all the blood that is currently being spilled in the name of economic advantage. Of course, there are alternate solutions. For one, sugar cane. About five times as energy potent as corn. Virtually the entire Brazilian Economy runs off of it. And when oil runs out, it will at some stage, perhaps even in your lifetime, the world will not stop. People will simply switch to substitutes.

Peter M., Hollywood, CA

What is it that the French inspector says in Casablanca? "I'm shocked...SHOCKED...to find gambling going on in here...(Your winnings,sir...) Oh, thank you very much...."

Ricky J Roberson, Huntsville, AL

Ha, ha, the lefties are screaming this morning and acting like this is something new.
Whatcha gonna do about it?
Have another protest that the same tired groups attend?
Pay for another add to assasinate the character of the military?
Keep those hearts bleeding and the U.S. military will go on protecting your right to remain stupid and saying the things that confirm it.

Brad, Woodstock, GA, USA

the price of oil internationally is always the "marginal barrel" --
the price paid by the last country/buyer who needs to sustain its economy.
EVERY WAR in the history of mankind has been fought over treasures/territories/economic advantage:
? Why is the last hundred years any different?
If Sands of the Middle East have been discovered to contain the "treasure of the ages" --? Why is there any surprise, anywhere?
The more intelligent question is:
? Why do the ostriches and dodo birds in our Senate and Congress not use our considerable resources in order to develop and invent new energy sources -- primary nuclear?
Israel has been converting seawater for decades.
France used our technology to build dozens and dozens of nuclear reactors and they are 80% off the "oil standard".
we are headed for worldwide conflagration, because our elected dunces want us to put corn flakes in our gas tanks, and in our products.
We are being led off a cliff by the Pied Piper's.
Total insanity!!

steve proffitt, tucson, az

We all have different perspectives and I could see how Greenspan would give a reason like oil. The fight is against Al Queda. Al Queda is worldwide, but mostly found in the middle east. Oil is also found in the middle east. Who Knew?

Robert, Athens, GA

It's the catchy theme of the day to sell books to liberal readers: blame something on Bush and claim the war was really about oil. The publishers claim it will add at least 300,000 additional copies to the run total.

Scott, Boulder, , CO USA

Greenspan sounds like he has a case of 'sour grapes' for some reason. I sure wish we had some of that Iraqi oil. We haven't benefited yet from it and it doesn't look like we ever will. Also, surely Greenspan knows that a war tends to be a little harder on the budget. If Clinton would have had the guts to take some action around the globe, there probably wouldn't have been a 911 and thus a ground war. Greenspan needs to stick with economics.

Kyle Barnhill, Nacogdoches, USA / Texas

More straw on the pile. I wonder when the camels back will break.

Fred, Decatur, USA / GA

Isn't it astonishing that it takes a famous Republican saying something any thinking person will find uncontroversial for the truth to finally find its way to print?

Sam Turich, PITTSBURGH, USA/ Pennsylvania

Surprise!

hap, Appleton, WI

Too bad Mr. Greenspan can't be even more politically incorrect and point the finger at his and his wife's special friend, Mr. Clinton, for not ending the chance of such an organized attack, for the first time ever, on American soil by grabbing the mastermind when they had the chance. Then there would be no need to protect our interests (and the world's) in such a drastic way. There was grave neglect on the part of that administration now praised by Mr. Greenspan.

All those who apparently care nothing for continuing their comfortable standard of living can really demonstrate their agreement with Mr. Greenspan by simply refusing the energy that they live on.

Oh, yeah....and that current loan/mortgage debacle resulting now in finally paying the piper. Well, Mr. Greenspan recently stated that he knew about it during his watch but didn't believe the results would be that bad! Hmm. Now that doesn't seem to alarm too many!

Christopher, Philadelphia,

The Fed is a PRIVATE bank and needs to prop up the $ via the petrodollar (keep the oil sold in $) to prop up its worthless fiat currency, eg:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11110:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/John+F.+Kennedy+Miscellaneous+Information.htm
“On June 4, 1963 President Kennedy signed this virtually unknown Presidential decree, which had the authority to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest, essentially putting the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank out of business. The order returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Johnson reversed the order shortly after taking office in November, 1963. Some conspiracy theorists believe this executive order was the cause of President Kennedy's assassination.”

Adam Ghaznavi, London, UK

We didn't and are not going into Darfur - clearly an area where the people being subjected to genocide are a lot worse off than the Iraqis were under Saadam.
No nuclear weapons found. No ties to Al Quaeda.
It now makes sense to me. From a "real politik" view, the folks in charge of our Foreign Policy felt that they had to protect our access to oil. They couldn't put that rationale forth as a reason for war. Congress would not have voted "YES".
That persuades me that the policy makers were not as stupid as I thought.
As the war was of their own timing - I am still upset that they didn't have a good plan for restoring government and keeping order in Iraq after the war.
In this war of choice - not taking the time and effort to have a good plan for what needed to be done after the war is inexcusable.
But our electorate apparently excused the lack of planning by re-electing the President and by proxy - his advisers and those in charge.
"Democracy" sometimes startles me.

Howard, S Burlington, VT - USA

OK smart people. So what is America without oil? We need to stop thinking potitics and think of this as war before it is too late. Not all acts aggression in the middle east are going to be with terrorist attacks and nukes. What happens to our economy with no oil? What happens to our ability to defend ourselves without oil? There is more to National Security than armed forces and intelligence. Think people...THINK!

PK Beatty, Naples, FL

War for oil is a "legitimate governmental concern"??? No, oil is a business. And American business should be able to find ways of buying oil from whatever source without killing hundreds of thousands of people!

CLP, Washington, DC / USA

Jaye: When Hussein drug his heels, his behavior was rational. The US was not the only antagonist he faced. His posturing wasn't meant for Washington. It was meant for Tehran. The man did not want the Iranians to possess the information that Washington sought. Yet Hussein did cooperate - albeit reluctantly. Blix and Ritter each followed US intelligence from site to site and found NOTHING. The smarts you should question belong to those who were shocked by the fact that the US army's findings matched those of Blix and Ritter.

Jeff, Lancaster, PA

Big surprise!

So far, the occupation of Iraq has cost the US about $1 trillion. For that amount of money, the US could have replaced every gasoline powered car in the US with an electric model and blanked the country with solar panels and wind turbines. But, alas, that would not be profitable for the arms dealers and oil companies that now call the shots in Washington.

Bill, San Francisco, California, USA

ok class lets review the lesson. Oil feeds us, warms us, runs our economy, lights our homes,maintains our way of life. going to war to secure the free market flow of oil against madmen who would use it to destroy us seems just.
I have no problem seems like maybe we should move our army next door for awhile.
Europe remember for the most part the oil from the mid east is shipped to europe.
the oil from Alaska is shipped to japan and the oil from south america is used in the USA. so Bush went to war for europe AGAIN!!

Gene, Camden, de

This 'old codger' is right.

Firstly the situation in Iraq is not a 'war', it's an illegal occupation. The west will occupy and protect the oil until it runs out. If we were really there for the benefit of the iraqi people then why didn't we stop the rwandan genocides and other african nations from going to pot?

When the oil runs out in iraq there will be war with russia to beat them to the gas reserves on the arctic circle, this will always be the situation.

We all complain about the political wrong doings, but without vast amounts of gas and oil, we wouldn't be the wealthy, healthy country's we are. Have a think next time you use your 3 litre BMW or ride on your bike. You might have to think differently...

Gary, London,

Is respondent Andrew Logar serious? Worth 600 thoudand deaths and billions of dollars? What about spending that money on finding and building alternative energy sourse?
Leah Mack, Victoria, Australia

leah mack, wangaratta, Vic, Australia

In 1974 we had a wake up call with the first oil crisis in the U.S. and we have failed to free ourselves from this Achilles heel of energy needs thirty years later. Yet, the media, socialists and Democrats insist on blaming George W. Bush.
History will show as it has with Winston Churchill that our current leader has practically been the savior of the U.S. in many ways, not the least of which is providing strong leadership in a time of growing terrorist threats.

Johnny Guitar, Charlotte, USA/ NC

So where, exactly, is my 50-cent-a-gallon gas, then?

T. Riddle, Toledo, Ohio USA

You people are nuts, if the war was about oil it wouldn't be $80 a barrel/ $350 a gallon.

mike, chicago, il

Oh, boo hoo. Everyone presuming this is a "war for oil" needs to disconnect from the power grid and never use modern transportation again or shut your hypocritical mouths.

Halliburton Rulez, somewhere, usa

When is it a shock to state the obvious?

Emerson, Spring Grove, PA

Duh? Yeah. But I believe Greenspan is the first to come out and publicly say this.

Gary W. Priester, Placitas, New Mexico, USA

And what will responsible citizens of the world DO when the bombs begin falling on Iran?

Ken, Madison, WI

DUH! I'm just a little old lady who knew the war was for oil before the actual invasion. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. The reason there is so little progress In Iraq is that the the (American installed) Government has failed to sign the treaty that gives their oil to American and British companies. The Kurds just signed a deal with Hunt oil. Maybe the rest of Iraq will follow. Then Americans can permanently move into the luxurious, multi-million dollar Embassy compound leaving the citizens to cope with each other and spent uranium.

Janet, La Conner, Washington

now that carbon deposits have gotten in our drinking waters its only sensible to think (realize) that our this world is already filled up with carbon ect ect this being the case our world is being and will be pressurized with carbon forever after and other pollutants correct correct i think you have to do more studies and make sure that this is occuring so we as the people that survive here in planet earth all the people are on the same page without water we become extinct correct or am i just pulling your leg can we boil the water to get the carbon out if so how long extra do we boil it

arturo r. loayza , germantown, u.s.a. maryland

Only a revelation for the blind.

ken, bournemouth,

The cost of this stalemate war would have bought a LOT of oil without the accompanying death & destruction....

TGM, NYC,

This may be true, but if the United States, Britain, and Europe as well, were cut off from the main oil supply in the world, it would have had devestating effects on our economies and our ways of life.

Ask yourself something, are YOU ready to give up your way of life? If you aren't you should be whole-heartedly supporting the occupation of Iraq; or at the very least, turn your eyes away and pretend its not happening.

James, branford, CT

The Haliburton's of the world are gettting rich as a result of the war.

Billions are dollars are being made over the deaths of our Soldiers.

There is an entire economy that is created when you go to war - unfortunately only a select few profit directly, and we all pay for it.

It's all about the Oil!

James Frank, Elgin, Illinois, USA

There is no question that Desert War (1990) was about oil.
But remember 9/11 was an attack on us and taking out Saddam was necessary to prevent al Queda from using Iraq as a launching pad for its nefarious aims. Many Americans don't want to acknowlege this because of their hatred for GW. Also remember that Greenspan's wife was a member of one of the left's leading liberal news teams so I'm not surprised at his "confession".

Francis F. Skiba, San Antonio,

No Joke? Not necessarily US oil, but everyone's oil including the swarmy left wing types on the continent who will not fight for their own oil.

Kenneth R Orzel, Pompano Beach, FL

Common sense, and numerous insider reports, have long shown that the war was about oil. Greg Palast's book Armed Madhouse, makes the case that rather than try to boost Iraq's oil production, the intent of the oil co's over the last 70 years was always to reduce Iraq's output in order to lessen supply and drive prices up (boosting the puppet family dictatorship in Saudi Arabia). Bush's own advisors suggest the same. Greenspan only opines after the disaster, and mil.-industrial profits, are in the bank. Corporate figures tend to cover their own rears first, then only dribble truths out after the majority has long thought similarly.

George LoBuono, Davis , CA USA

I find it interesting that even though some of Greenspan's coments are published in the US press and media, they focus on his critique of Bush's government spending. I had to come here to read about his attach on your Iraq policy. Goes to show, despite all of my government's claims of fostering democracy, the news is not all that free in the 'free world'

David, Clinton, Washington state, USA

Of course part of the equation includes oil. If it weren't for the oil, we'd have nuked the islamists back into the dark ages from whence they came (and desire to return) long ago.

The only worthwhile thing that part of the world has to offer is oil.

That the same oil the civilized world depends on funds hateful islamist extremists is the sad fact we have to figure out how to work around.

No news here, Greenspan.

Jonathan Murray, Jacksonville, NC, USA

I'm glad to see that Greenspan isn't afraid to show integrity when it comes to Bush & his croonies motives for going to war with Iraq. I think, many Americans were aware of the oil-motivator; however, some refused to believe it. It went against the grain of being a patriotric citizen here. However, being patriotric doesn't mean we have to go along with bad judgement calls made by our leaders ... esp. when it has serious global consequences. In this case, Bush has ruined our beautiful country's reputation with our world neighbors; and it will take a long time to restore our integrity.

Kelli L., Chicago, IL

Kelli L., Chicago, IL

While it is certainly refreshing to see a member of the elite tell the truth, Greenspan only told half the truth: oil was no doubt one of the primary reasons for invading Iraq but the other was to give Israel dominance over the Mideast...not that these two reasons are unrelated, since the one facilitates the other (over the short-term period of interest to decision makers).

William deB. Mills, Reston, VA

If we went to war for oil, then whay did we turn it over to Iraq.
It appear that GreenSpan is as Liberal as his wife Andria Mitchell.. It seems to me that the Bush Tax Cuts was good for the ecomony. Like Clinton and Jmmy Carter, for Greenspan to jump in after the fact shows no class.

Jack Cross, Texas City, TX/ USA

you can file this under the "DUH" category. I don't know what Britians think but just because the media doesn't report it does not mean that folks don't know. it's a widely held public view by both liberal and conservative sides that we created this war for oil purposes. Al Queda had NOTHING to do with it.

Julie Stockman, Cincinnati, OH, US

so let me see, If i want to sell books, i bash bush.. it is a big surprise that someone who deals with economics would see the world thru those eyes,,, next time lets ask micky mouse...

sam, wylie, tex

What else Greenspan discovered? The earth is not flat? Bush lies? Lindsay Lohan drinks a lot?

gus vidal, arlington, va

Actually Walter Voss, Clifton, NJ

Americans pay the same for oil as everyone else in the world.

Bill Wylam, Indianapolis, USA/Indiana

Read the book titled the Prize it tells the whole story.

Joseph, Bethlehem , USA Penna.

"Let's say that is true. So what?"
That's amazing! No wonder that people like you and the neoconservatives have been lying to your teeth with shame!
Now, you go and tell the kids of the dead soldiers that your father or mother died for a bucket of cheap oil to save people like you some money.

Wayne, Naperville, IL/USA

Alan,
With statements like that you are now going to leave a questionable legasy.

Mike Ritota, Guadalajara, Mexico

No, No, No. There really are weapons of mass destruction and Saddam will use them against us as soon as he returns to power!

Kiri Kin-Tha, London, England

Notice the quote does not criticize the war, just the stated motives of the war.

Mike Massey, Independence, USA, La.

Alan Greenspan is a silly, little man. No class.

TC, Stamford,, Ct, USA

Who cares what this person says?

MaximusDelta, collins,

people who want Bush impeached should educate themselves on exactly what that means and the consequences. It is entirely possible for a president to be impeached and still be in office. Check it out....

Carl, cleveland, oh

one million dead men women and children so you yanks can have cheap fuel???? it cost more now then it did before?
these wars are no different to what Hitler did so its no surprise to find out its backed by the same people that backed Hitler!
why has the u.n not assembled a army to stop bushes war of aggression on people who did nothing to America?
if china was doing it there would be a army on the field!
if japan was doing it there would be a army on the field!
if north Korea was doing it there would be a army on the field!
if any country other America was doing it there would be a army on the field!
the funny thing is they are spending billions trying to brain wash us to think there way and its all been a waste of time and money! google (p.n.a.c)

able, melbourne, australia

I even had talks with Iraqi people who worked at the Iraqi haven-port who said that unknown ships constantly departed with unknown shipments...Guess what is on those ships..

Jerry, Jaffrey, NH

Wow..I didn't realize that Mr. Greenspan.

Austin, Betlem, Pa

Greenspan is now trying to "rewrite history". It was Greenspan that caused our current economic difficulties by cozying up to Dubya after he was elected, and rubber-stamping the Republican spend and no-tax proposals. It was Greenspan that kept printing money to finance Dubya's wars. Now Greenspan is pretending to be a Dubya victim, too. What a crock!

Jim McMah, Tamuning, Guam

I wonder why Mr. Greenspan is so willing to spill the beans on the "war for oil" but would never acknowledge who owns the Federal Reserve and why they are allowed to collect hundreds of billions of tax free dollars for profit every year.

Mr. Greenspan should take a moment and explain why the Federal Reserve has never been audited and why they have successfully stamped down every attempt by Congress to open the Feds for information.

Perhaps he should explain how Greenspan has devalued the American Dollar by 60% in the last 7 years alone!

It would not suprise me that Mr. Greenspan's mis-direction is an attempt to draw our attention away from a much greater war betweeen the White House and the privately owned central bankers.

Richard, Nashville, TN, USA

What other national interest does the US have in the Middle East that's more important than oil? Iran is next and yes it will be about Iraq's oil but the story will continue to be WMD's.

Joe M., Simsbury, CT

"But it's clear that we are in a fight against al Queda", from Anne, London.
And that I'm not too sure either. I feel for the civilians in Iraq.

arctanck, Reading,

Anne, of London, UK, is also very 'spot on'. She's clearly a pragmatist, who, while perhaps saddened by the 'facts' is nonetheless intelligent enough to accept the facts and not indulge in the fantasy that she is 'appalled' by such rationale for war. There are many handwringers who say they are appalled but lack the integrity to acknowledge that, many, many aspects of our way of life, involve heavy dependence now for decades, on foreign oil, and much of our economic structure are dependent on that oil. I'm saddened that so many are quite willing to accept the song lyrics played through their IPods without quite being willing to acknowledge how that IPod came to be - and further, came to be in their possession. I suppose my comments may draw criticism, but I don't much care, as truth is truth - inconvenient or not.

Rich, Maple Valley, WA, USA

This is news? We've been trying to tell people this from the beginning of the media circus of war build up. Why does it take sooo long for common sense to finally see the light of day in this country? You swallowed the lies this administration has been feeding you from the get go, fertilized by the media and so now this is news? Only to those who refused to see reality before this day.

kclaf, MEREDITH,

Of course it was about oil! Even when it was about Democracy it was about oil. There's nothing we'd want more than a free trading, free market, Democratic and oil rich state in the middle east. In fact, I'm sure Bush hoped Iraq would be so successful in being...well...just like us, that the ideology would spread to the surrounding states, giving us more oil and more democracies.

In the past the United States has benefitted from being the Vanguard of both Democracy and global free trade. It benefits other economies too. But we're the ones with the guns. Unfortunately, we just don't know how to use them. We should have listened to Colin Powell. Before the war, he told Bush that Iraq came with a certain "Pottery Barn" policy: you break it, you own it. Well Bush broke it. Iraq's price tag cost the Republicans the Congress, and with any luck it will cost them the Presidency as well.

Michael Herman, Washington, DC

"Our Emperor has now, NO CLOTHES," screams the child at hand ...

" Weapons of mass destruction, no; Democracy, that will do"
screams the old man with the oily fingers, dripping blood...

More his elder, states the un-said, "OIL" naked truth be told! ...

Ray Herdegen, Minneapolis, , Minnesota

I am personally very happy that 3 and a half thousand of Americas best gave their lives so that Anne from London could gas up her s.u.v.. I hope your mayor gets that tax on gas guzzlers passed. Shame on you Anne!!!!!!!

Lee, St. Louis, MO.

To Anne, London.

Tell me Anne, if in your view you have no problem with killing 1.2 million innocent civilians in order to secure our economic interests (and lets not delude ourselves, the death of 1.2 million Iraqi's and counting IS the price), then presumably you have no issues with someone killing 3,000 people during the attacks in 2001 ?

By your warped logic, there is no such idea as right/wrong, moral/immoral or indeed legal/illegal. Everything comes down to 'interests' !

Victor Friend, Manchester, England

Pillow talk on Greenspan's part.

Organization Man, Seattle, WA

Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy the oil. Or lift sanctions and give weapons to Saddam in exchange for continued use of dollars instead of Euros for oil purchases? This war costs $177million per day (I'll just assume that the "deciders" don't care about the "cost" in human lives.).

Perhaps Greenspan is putting out a little misinformation for his Israel lobby friends in AIPAC.

El Derbo, Charlotte, NC

To Anne in London: So let me get this straight; it's alright by you that George W. commits a war crime or two to "protect our interests?" The problem with that is that the oil is buried under their ground, so it doesn't actually belong to us. Additionally, how many dead, innocent Iraqi's per gallon are acceptable to you?

How despicable.

Although oil seems a likely candidate for the real cause of this war, it might also be that George W. just wants a hug from his daddy. It doesn't really matter, because there was and remains no valid reason for what we're doing over there.

By the way, do you think al Qaeda might be fighting us not because they want to convert anyone, but because we keep invading their lands and killing their people? That sounds like a more plausible explanation to me. Maybe we should try something different.

Robert Ludwig, Warren, Michigan

If this war really was for oil, then why has the U.S. have yet to reap any economic benefit more than four years since it began?

The price of gas (petrol) is still sky-high here in the States, and Irag recently renewed a $1.2 billion dollar oil deal with China that U.S. officials were unaware of. Perhaps you would say the Chinese in on the war effort, too?

In the end, the latent purpose for the war was to try and drive a wedge of democracy between Iran and Syria. A highly risky, highly ambitious plan, but one that would pay off in every sense of the word for generations of Iraquis and non-islamofascist countries worldwide.

David Honaker, Raleigh, USA, North Carolina

Is there a surprise here?

Now, it would be interesting for him to discuss how Israel fit into the war.

Geoff Beck, Kirksville, MO, Usa

No kidding it was for oil. Not to take it, but to ensure it keeps flowing. Idiot leftists

Gary S., Bridgeport, NY

The question is why hide this motive of the war?

It has been transparent throughout, why we went to war. The fact we can be morally outraged now is ludicrous.

The same people who are now outraged we went to war are driving SUV's that get 10mpg. An oil embargo by Iraq would have made our opulant life style impossible,

Bush should come right out and say this is why we went. Stop allowing people to hide behind some moral front. And allow us now to concentrate on what needs to be done: extracting troops in a constructive way that would support a stable oil supply.

Stephen, Nashua, NH

Well, duh.

craig, las vegas,

Noooo!!!! Really?????

Anica, London, U.K.

If Mr. Greenspan's claim is found accurate, it will shake the confidence of anyone who has supported this Administration. It will also deeply hurt the chances of any Republican running for office for the next several years. This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, so to speak.................

Jack McGeehan, West Chester, Pennsylvania USA

What about Dafur? There is oil there why not the war with the northern Sudan's Arabic majority who have been killing the Christians and Black Muslim population? This kind of puts Mr.Greensoab claim about war for oil theory eh!

Louise Paquette, Tecumseh, Canada, On

That doesn't surprise me. His wife is a very liberal correspondent for NBC. Birds of a feather......

Margaret Smith, Big Lake, MN

Well done to Mr Greenspan and all the media that covers this .

ohana, osaka, albion

Greenspan is the chairman of the Federal Reserve, NOT A MEMBER OF THE CABINET. Except for when they are asked to brief the President the little egg-heads at the Fed are not in the White House, and they are no more privy to inside information then any of the rest of the American public. All Greenspan has done by saying this is to religate himself to the same status as Rosie O'donnell and secure that the kook fringe will by his book.

Jessica , Newport News, VA

Greenspan must realy like Bill and Hillary a lot! Thank you Mr. Greenspan for being as honest as ever... it's why we love you Mr. Greenspan, you are a truth seeker and that is very important for market forces. I wonder if Mr. Greenspan will go so far as to endorse Hillary?!

gerald clough, Laramie , wy

In the first invasion Daddy Bush forced a deal with Saddam for his oil. Saddam backed out after Daddy stopped the invasion. Bubba is taking orders from the oil interest to secure that oil for the big profits. Saddam was going to sell the oil to China, India and North Korea.

james pez, houston, texas

Now that we've heard from Capt. Obvious. Since when has war not been about wealth/power/resources and the control thereof?

Mike, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Oil is a big part of it. Bush recognized that instability in world oil markets would wreck havoic on the US economy. Imagine $6 a gallon gas = major recession. Ultimately I don't see the Democrats doing anything different. It doesn't matter who is President Rudy , Obama or Hillary. If gas prices stay at $6 a gallon ......they're out of office next election. Americans will blame who's ever in office.

Jimmy888, Chicago, IL.

"Isn't it interesting that so many well-respected public figures, once they're retired and presumably free to speak their minds, tend to confirm our worst fears about the conduct of the Bush administration?"

Isn't it interesting that it is always under the auspices of selling a book. They know there are a lot of kooks out there who will eat this stuff up. No surprise, except one might expect a little more integrity from someone like Greenspan. Does this mean he was making decisions based upon his own self-interest and not that of the nation when he was in a position of public trust? Likely.

Lori, Calif, USA

WOW! The gig is up. An economist who has NOTHING to do with executive policy esp. military policy has busted this whole thing wide open! Wonder where Greenspan was sitting in the Oval Office when he heard that it was "all about the oil"?

You people amaze me. I bet if the White House janitor retired, wrote a book and made this claim you all would be jumping to your keyboards to say it was so? Its about the same to claim that Greenspan had the scoop. Maybe it was this moderate liberatarians OPINION?

Mike , Baltimore, USA/Maryland

Susan... That's a mighty big desert and I do believe that there are many WMD's buried around there, whether or not we find them, who knows? And, I don't believe Saddam was an architect of 9/11. He and Osama never got along as Saddam was just as decadent as the west is, he was just cruel about it.

As for Greenspan, he may be right. Oil makes the world go 'round... 20 years from now, when our "hindsight" clears up and is back to 20/20, we'll see just who was right and who was wrong. For now, I'm still backing Dubya. He's the elected, not open for discussion, leader of the free world.

Jay, Boulder, Colorado, USA

When did Saddam have the ability to invade another country after 1991. Was he capable of any military offensive, post Desert Storm? He was reduced to a totalitarian "president" with a Republican guard that could terrorize and murder people within the Iraqi borders. It could not have been about regional security, because he posed not real threat outside of Iraq. Military bases in Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, a Jordanian alliance, and Israeli military capabilities render a Saddam offensive impossible. Jordan is paying more for oil now than ever before, and the Jordan Kingdom was getting cheap oil from Iraq legally. Greenspan may be right in his claim it was for oil, but it is only a peice of the over all plan for the new Middle East. Check history the lines were redrawn after the first World War. Now during the 4th World War within the past 100 years we see the lines becomong blurred. erased , and soon to be redrawn. May peace be upon the world, Al Salaam, Shalom, Peace, La Paz

Chad, Nashville, North America

This is all very simple. We Yankees are incapable of doing anything right and should "go home". George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt both had it right, when they said "avoid foreign entanglements" and "walk softly, but carry a big stick".

David, Brown Deer, USA/Wisconsin

"If it was all about oil, how come we aren't getting any?" -Carol, Grand Rapids, MI

Because you are losing .. no .. you lost the war. Thats right. Past tense.

Given George Bush's extensive background in the oil industry, the oil reserves in the Middle East, and the impending peak in oil production, anyone who has even a bit of sense in him/her would have put 2 and 2 together by now.

If you think that the Iraq war is about 'spreading democracy', then you are seriously deluded. When the Palestinians voted in a Hamas Government, the Bush administration denounced it. Evidently, democratically elected governments are only valid if they are on Bush's side, eh? Bush also supports a non-democratic Pakistan as an ally on the 'war on terror' (another farce imo).

So much for 'democracy'.

Pete, Cov,

For the best thing Bush did in office, I would like to thank him for covering this up and sending our soldiers to die for this oil that would keep our economies head above water. As one other citizen had commented, all this was done because of a business deal that had gone awry. All I ask is that the true motives for our actions be stated and known before we drop hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that has no sight to an end. Rebuttal to anybody regarding the weapons of mass destruction: Saddam came out of nowhere while Mr. Kim Jong Il was test firing his weapons into the Pacific. But of course North Korea doesn't have the kind of stronghold on the oil industry as Iraq does. Thanks.

USARNG, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

Well, no duh it was about oil. Sadam had to go because he was a bad guy with oil. Think how it would be to have $20 gas. Of course it about oil.
However, don't for a moment think that Alan Greenspan was part of that discussion at all. The comments he is making now is as a private citizen. He was not at "the table" when this was being discussed.
Frankly, I am not sure why he is still newsworthy.

Dan , Frederick, US

It's amazing how people take this as the truth. Is Greenspan all of a sudden the King of truthfulness? Isn't he capable of being wrong and/or misled. Let it play out. The real truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Harold, collinsville,

There's yet a further component to the 'blood for oil' strategy that is often undiscussed. The west —largely the U.S.A.— covets the oil not only for thier own conspicious consumption but to keep it out of the hands of China. Were the U.S. to forego the consumption of fossil fuels and turn to so-called alternative methods it would leave millions and millions of barrels on the marker that China could buy on the cheap to power thier industries. The U.S. does not wish to give China cheap and easy acess to fuel, pure and simple. That's why they are in Iraq.

F Ron Miller, Los Angeles, California, USA

What does it mean to say that the war is about oil? It's not really all that informative of a statement or a premise. Who benefits from this and why? I had heard in the past that Bush had ties to oil industry, but these were never proven that I know of. When someone gives a one-word answer to a huge question like this, it just makes me think that the people are just desparate for someone to blame. Can we please increase the quality of the discussion?

Kenny, Austin, Texas

Greenspan has always been wrong. He seldom spoke as fed chair so it was never so obviouse. Point in fact - the financial brain of the century did not see the melt down in sub prime coming (obviously) otherwise he would not have raised rates. Inflation was never a problem. Like many Jewish people - they wont face the fact that 90% of what we do in the middle east is to protect Isreal - who has no oil - if we were all about oil we would take all the aid we give Isreal and give it to oil producing nations. If you have not figured it out yet the Arabs will attack us Oil or not - they are attacking Russia (who needs no Oil) and parts of Asia and soon they will do so again on our own soil. Bush should be applauded for keeping them off US soil for so long!

Charlie Gilreath, Los Angeles , Ca

So What? You should have a problem with it because that would mean Americans are responsible for murdering thousands so that we can get their rightfully owned oil. We turn into murderers instead of defenders of democracy. We become tyrants instead of freedom fighters. That is a HUGE problem.

Carol, Sacramento, CA

So, since Mr Greenspan is a numbers guy, well, let's look at the numbers. The US imports 24% of its oil from Middle East countries (Sauid Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait). It also imports 20% from Canada, 16% from Mexico, 13% from Venezuela, 22% from African countries. This represents 95% of oil imports into the US on a daily basis. So, my question is, if this war is truly about oil, then why don't we solve our oil problem by invading Canada, Mexico and Venezuela? It would be a lot easier. And besides, we would save ourselves a whole lot more time and money, wouldn't we? Hey, just goggle "US Oil Import" and read it for yourself.

Steve, Springboro, Ohio

It is obvious that OPEC is trying to defeat the west by rationing oil. If Iraq had obtained Kuwait and its port, the embargo would have strangled the west. So, if the war is to make sure that oil remains in free trade, then so be it. I support that action. Just for the nay-sayers, America has ALWAYS paid for its share of anything. Further, America has paid dearly to save Europe and England from Hitler and the Fascist hordes. Did we take any land? Did we get the lend lease money all back? Do any of you think we are going to steal the oil, or will we pay market price for the oil in free market trade. Isn't it odd that Iraq signed agreements with China for oil from Iraq if America is there to STEAL the oil. You people need to get real and then look around under the sand and get a life.

Jake, Doniphan,

Of course it is about oil. If the oil law gets passed in Iraq, Bush will gladly 'bring our troops home'. The oil companies will hire mercenaries to guard the pipelines and they will live in compounds our tax dollars have built. for this 70/30 split in favor of the oil companies, they will not be required to hire Iraq citizens to work for them, they will not be required to 'invest' any of their profit in Iraq, they will not be required to even sell the oil/gas back to the country, no they can take EVERYTHING they make and pump out of the country. They will get huge tax breaks because of the 'rebuilding' they will have to do. This is a sham deal for Iraq, but it will pass and most of the citizens of the US will never know how unjust this deal is. They will just wonder, 'Why do they hate us?'

Tammy, santa clara, california

Greenspan says what everyone knows... that Saddam was making a run for control of mid east oil. Both Bush's attacks on Iraq defend OPEC, NOT American control of Iraq oil.

James Johnson, Baltimore, , Maryland, USA

Allen Greenspan needs to stay out of politics. If the war is about oil, how come oil is not .50 cents a gallon? The U.S. controls the oil fields,where is the cheap oil,Allen?

karl f.ammons, new orleans, louisiana

Damn liberal economists. WHy do they hate freedom so much?

Kevin, Boston, USA, MA

Greenspan is an old , angry man who is being brainwashed by his very left of center wife Andrea Miotchell of NBC snews.
He should just shut up and enjoy retirement.

Nick, naples, usa

Of course the war is all about control of the oil.The majority of the American Public are too ignorant to see this.Which is why they voted for him not once but twice.Now he tells them that there are 36 other nations fighting in Iraq.Who are these other nations??We only hear of American,brittish and Iraqi casualties.

Nannie Turner, cincinnati, USA

Well of course the US and British government were never going to admit it was all about oil. I am reminded of the words of Arnold Toynbee, one of the founders of Chatham House: "We are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands"

David Moon, Seaford, East Sussex

According to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, Greenspan criticizes George Bush's economic policies such as the deficit and out-of-control spending. On the other hand, he praises Bill Clinton as a "risk taker" and "dealing in facts". Alan Greenspan is a Republican who was appointed by Reagan.

Audrey, Pequot Lakes, Minnesota, USA

Proof that a very smart man can still say something very stupid.

Lee, Mayhill, NM, USA

If this war was for oil, then why wasn't the Afghan war which we (for the most part) won for the same thing?

I can't imagine what proof Greenspan offers.

linda, Rutherford, NJ

I am a little tired of these powerful men coming out with criticism of Bush and his globally destructive policies only after serving their time out. The whole world foresaw the carnage except the American Neocons. The MSM of the west was in cohoots with the administration and played a major role in this destruction of a sovereign country which had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever. What is even more sickening is the lack of accountability on part of anyone who cheerlead this occupation misadventure.

bala holalkere, Thief River Falls, MN

He speaks what every thinking person in the USA knew when we invaded Iraq. This government didnt give a damn about how many Iraqi's were killed or soldiers were lost to get that oil either. We still dont care about those people. We just want them to sign over the rights to their oil to our oil companies then we can leave.

Freeman1 , Sarasota, Florida

duh- now we should get to the real task and take the oil.

jeff, san diego, ca

I am a conservative and for the most part a republican but not a blind follower of the Bush administration. It is completely ridiculous to think the war based in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with economics and therefore oil supply. However an intelligent person has to do nothing more than to look the current set of events and how they have transpired to know that the Bush administration does not want to control the oil in Iraq. To believe they do and to believe that this war is about oil alone one must totally have a "willing suspension of disbelief". The administration is trying hard to get the Iraqi government to take complete control. How does that translate into what Greenspan is saying. Come on Alan, I am not stupid, your just trying to sell books.

Larry, Portland, IN

Well . . . two thoughts:

I have parents in their 80s, neither of whom I'd care to be quoted in international news. The mental capacity of aged folks ought to be a consideration. (Of course, the left-leaning media will jump on something like this like chickens on a June Bug.)

Given the West's and Europe's oil dependence, should consideration NOT be given to protect and preserve, for national security reasons, the oil supplies? After all, this Dictator had already invaded Kuwait.

tea2dump, Batesburg, SC

Well of course we will only send troops out to defend our strategic interests. Part of those strategic interests is the security of our supplies of energy - in this case oil. But there were clearly other important considerations introduced by the terrorist attacks in New York in 2001. The public will not countenance sending troops out on some idealistic mission where our strategic interests are not threatened. Alan Greenspan is correct in saying that oil was a consideration but he is no more of an expert on the matter than you or me.

Gerard, London, UK

There is a science to war and knowledgeable Generals should know how to use that science. We had reconnaissance aircraft by the wings full, replete with infrared as well as laser, real time, and latent image photography, key hole satellites, U2's, SR 71's, and WMD inspectors in country and free to roam in Iraq. We had SLR (side looking radar), "left lookers" and "right lookers" with over-the-horizon stealth camouflage. We had covert agents closely watching everywhere, and they all said the same thing, no WMD's. There was over $600 billion plus dollars a year going for arms and "troops" and intelligence. Yet all of this intelligence couldn't overrule the cherry picking of some very selective fabricated information on Iraq, demanded by the two oil men from Texas who ran the Executive Branch . Everybody was afraid to speak the truth to power, and good men and women died for the lack of it. 9/11 was a scoundrel's dream come true.

C Bright, Garden City Beach, SC

Greenspan is a fool. Fed Governor Donald Kohn proved Greenspan overestimated inflation by 1/2% during his tenure. Greenspan overreacted with excessive interest rates, sucking 6 trillion dollars from the US economy. Greenspan unnecessarily caused every recession during his term, particularly his unnecessary attack on the stock market in 1999/2000.
His obvious political bias was exposed when he refused to cut interest rates after the first Gulf War. The economy clearly needed a boost. This cost GHW Bush his re-election. And Genius Clinton? His economy exclusively resulted from Republican tax cuts and welfare reform.
And he rarely told congress to eliminate the idiotic communist liberal programs that sap money from working Americans and fed into the maw of the ineffective and inefficient government bureaucracies.
Greenspan is just another average 1930's economist in a 21st century economy, who can't understand the wealth creation doesn't equal inflation. He is an overrated fool.

Tom Adkins, Ridgewood, NJ

I am an 81 year old former wounded Marine Corps combat machine gunner who served his country in THREE wars ( W.W. II, The Korean War, and Vietnam War) so although I am a liberal I am NOT A BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL

I, from the get go of Bush's illegal attack on a soverign nation, Iraq who never did a hostile thing to the U.S. have WRITTEN AND STATED THAT THIS WHOLE SAD CHARADE IS ABOUT OIL AND THE RAPE OF IRAQ;S NATURAL RESOURCES BECAUSE THE BUSH AND CHENEY FAMILIES ARE OIL PEOPLE.

Furthermore, I have ALWAYS maintained that if IRAQ was nothing but sand and had no OIL there would be no death and destruction there.
THANK YOU ALAN YOU HAVE PROVEN ME RIGHT AND I COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY.

Albert C. Mezzetti, Manteca, Ca., U.S.A.

Hmmm, people here don't seem to understand what Greenspan means when he says that Iraq was largely about oil. I see dozens of replies along the lines of "where's the oil?" "Why aren't we getting oil?" "Why is no one drilling in Iraq then?"

This belies a narrow view of oil geopolitics.

The telling passage in the news story is this: "that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East."

The actual oil in Iraq is largely another question. Strategically, Saddam was a wildcard in an OIL-RICH but very unstable region of vital strategic importance to the U.S. When the right time came, part of the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion was that the U.S. could finally take out that wildcard. That's it. One of confluence of factors. But ensuring oil supply security is not the same as grabbing Iraq's oil with one's own hands.

Chris LaRoche, Vancouver, Canada

How sad it is George Crupper's book "Americans the Stupid " predicted all...In truth are leaders, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Petreous and now Greenspan lead us down the garden path of destruction while sending the simple minded poor boys and girls to fight and die and lose limbs so they can write books or go on the circuit and make mega bucks...of course the media and republicans can not escape the sin...not many have been willing to join up and fight for the cause...how these people sleep at night will always be a mystery...it seems that the leaders have tossed all morality and religion aside and joined the philosopy of Omar the Tent Maker ,,,"take the cash and leave the credit go"

r stabler, encino, ca

Finally, someone in a position of influence has acnowledged that the "emperor has no clothes." The qustion, NOW is, will anyone have the backbone to stand up to the Bush/Cheney push to attack Iran?

Phillip Windell, pittsburgh, PA

Oil is indeed a reason to go to war and it should have been discussed openly from the outset. Going to war over a commodity that is essential to life as we know it is nothing to be ashamed of and, indeed, if this administration allowed the supply of oil to be halted, they would have been driven from office. When are we going to learn that we can't have it both ways. Our way of life depends on oil and we need to protect its supply while we search for an alternative energy source, an undertaking we should be addressing rather than universal health care - which we don't need.

william Contessa, bronxville, NY

Greenspan is senile.

Kenneth Brinzer, Pittsburgh, PA

Saddam with weapons of mas destruction threatened our way of life. They('WMD's) were moved through Syria, we have sattelite photos of Russian trucks moving them at night for months.We have interviewed the Iraqi's who drove the trucks. Why not bring this up? We don't, didn't want to harm delicate relations with Russia, bad decision. I don't think the war was about oil or we would have the oil now, who could stop us? If we wanted Saudi oil, who could stop us or Kawati oil, we saved their country and never got their oil. This is the logic that escapes the Left, if we wanted their oil, Iraq, we would have it but we don't. That said our way of life was threatened, and protecting the WORLDS oil supplies also protected our way of life , 2 plus 2 still equals four.

Dr. Moshe Golden, Modesto, USA

Interesting that Greenspan now say's what most intelligent people knew from the very beginning of the Iraq invasion. Glad someone above finally commented about the Cheney oil meetings prior to the president's first inauguration. I would believe that plans were made as to how to get into Iraq and Iran in order to stabilize the flow of oil and prices. Our presence would do it. One person above indicated it was permissible to invade Iraq because we as a country are dependent on oil. Would we tolerate taking someone's house because we needed a place to live. The oil industry destroyed public transportation in the country (the street cars in LA and Amtrak,the electric car etc)) to make us dependent on fossil fuel cars. No, it was not our right to invade any country for our oil or any other natural resources need.
If you think me a traitor you should know that I served in the military as did all my brothers and unlike the chicken hawk republicans who advanced this war.

Fremon, Cathdedral City, USA

Mr. Greenspan will go down in history known as Mr. Bubbles. The more he speaks about the past the more he comes off as a half wit. What was he doing every day that he was so sheltered from the speculative realestate market and go go hedge fund expansion on wall street. I guess he was doing what he was tasked to do flip a coin and tell the feed either to speed up the printing presses printing money or slow down the printing presses. Like you need a high IQ to do that?. And now he takes no blame for debasing our currency with his easy money policies. Who cares what he thinks , he certainly is not a man who will take blame for poor business decisions.

Josh, High Point, North Carolina

He probably saved us all a World War 3 by doing it too. Maybe critics should educate themselves more by looking at the big picture, rather than the legnth of their noses. Being President of the United States is a huge responsibility that this President carries with Pride. Beware this Viper that you want in the office next. Count the number of deaths around the world while her husband was in office; Bosnia, Mogadishu, Chineese Embassy, to name a few. Did everyone forget about the decrease in security funding that actually lead up to 9/11, several Embassy bombings? Most of America seems to forget. Obama, Clinton are not the right choices for the future of this country. Take it from someone that spent a lot of time in Government, avoid the users, elect a person with no special interest groups paving their way, someone that just wants a job as a public servant, one that will work for US! Honestly.

Tim , Lacona, USA/NY

of course it's about oil. and what, once and for all is wrong with assuring that the world's oil supply flows freely? which is what the horrible, nefarious united states is up to when it meddles in the "dirty business" of oil. for good or ill, oil is the blood of the earth and without it, or without access to it, the world decends into an unimaginable dark age. if we could go back in time and fix the 'mistake' of the discovery, development and use of this providential gift, how would we have made the larger picture better?

thank god the united states has been the shepherd of the fair and equitable dispersal of this goo that runs the world, as opposed to the barbarian regimes that would hold its indespensibility hostage to whatever demands it sees fit to extort from humanity.

mike caplanis, leesburg, virginia, usa

"It wasn't ALL about oil. I think it's fair to say that Saddam was a threat to Israel, NOT to the US. Iraq never attacked the US-they did attack Israel.

JP, Westlake Village, Ca, USA"

That's the neoconservative rationale for the Iraq War. That Iraq was a part of a coalition opposing Israel in two wars should NEVER have influenced our "foreign policy".

The bottom line is that if the Middle East exported only dates we wouldn't be there.

And yes Jesse these people kept silent when it counted. Powell was strictly a 'yes sir' soldier whose rise was based on his ability to protect his superiors and Greenspan is, at rock bottom, a seriously overrated right-wing idealogue who cheered for Bush's tax cuts. As a demonstration of how lame Greenspan is, is his belief that Iraq posed a threat to the flow of Middle Eastern oil. Iraq, crippled by sanctions, the most deterred, contained nation in history was a threat to no nation. None of Iraq's neighbors trembled in fear.

Name Withheld, Grand Ledge, MI, USA

If the Iraq war is about Oil...So where is it???

Hugo Chavez, Caracas, Venezeula

And given that Greenspan was not part of the administration or their decision making team he would know this information how?

CHW, Chicago, USA

Anne,

So what ? 1 million dead is so what. If we paid a fair price for oil then there would be no war. Instead we pay what we want to pay because our bombs dictate the price. There is nothing morally right about our way of life.

Barnaby Robson, London ,

Well so what?...Oil runs the economic engine of Western Civilization and until we start drilling our own (offshore and in Alaska) we'll have to fight to keep the pipelines open ...the only other viable option is nuclear energy which I also support...had I been running the war I would have simply nuked the entire middle east, punched through the glass and sucked out the oil...saved more American Lives that way but would have had to listened to the U.N. Whine and weedle longer.

Mike Areno, Mechanicsville , Maryland

Hooray for Greenspan for having the courage to speak the truth!

Alma, Tampa, FL

This is a revelation?

Kim Righetti, Upland, Calif. USA

If it was all about Oil, Where is all the oil??

Mark, Mesa, USA/AZ

Anne from London says "Let's say that is true. So what? The US and Britan are dependent on oil. "

What do you mean, "so what"? We have been against this war, demonstrating, writing to our congressmen and the president, etc, to NO AVAIL. Yes, WE certainly have KNOWN this is the truth for a very long time, SO WHAT it means is that the war is nothing but a lie, that our soldiers are fighting, trying to believe it is for freedom, and it is FOR OIL, and that WE are the damn terrorists.

Joyce, Killeen, TX

Gee. Silly me. The whole time I thought it was because Sadaam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

You mean that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Powell/Wolfewicz ALL LIED while almost 4,000 of our best have died?

Well, I'm shocked I tell you - shocked!

Caroline, Albuquerque, USA-NEW Mexico

He is correct and until bush gets the Iraqi government to sign over 75% of it's oil to american interests we will remain in Iraq. Bush owes his base and war profiteers every ounce of young men and womens blood. Terrorists are a figment of bush's imagination in Iraq.

Shirley Coelho, Attleboro, MA

Yes, I think that Mr. Greenspan is correct in his assesment. However, I don't believe that Bush has chose this course of action to line his pockets with cash. This course of action is to solidify the stability of our nation. If the U.S. has a heartbeat, oil is the blood that is pumped through the viens.

Tom, Columbus, OH, US

AMEN!! Most of us have known this from the outset!!

j.simpson, middleboro, ma

finally this little nugget of obvious truth is admitted by the republican side of the aisle. chris shays also bluntly stated this earlier in the week and it's absolutely the first time i'd heard anything close to an honest admission from any of these guys!

swan beach pirate, swan beach,

AMEN!!!!

J.SIMPSON, middleboro, ma

It is obvious that it was about oil, but it seems some can't grasp the details. It was always about control of the greatest resource that has ever been known. Oil moves economies and nations. We are running short and whoever has control of supply, not just now but later, can bend nations and shape the world. To think of just your gas tank is a little short sighted.

Todd, Portland, OR

Here are some inconvenient questions: If it was 'all about oil' then why didn't the US just BUY it from Iraq? It would have cost a lot less in money, soldiers' lives, international prestige, etc. -- right?

If it was 'all about oil' why are US gas prices still so high? Shouldn't we be drowning in cheap gas? Wakey-wakey, boys and girls.

Try thinking for yourselves, even though it hurts.

Stevie Nichts, Alabaster , CA

It is awesome to finally see a high level Republican come out and say the truth about the War in Iraq!

Shaun P, Calgary, Alberta

I'm glad he waited to speak out until now. Honestly, do you really want the head of the Fed to be political. That isn't his job and it is counterproductive. He is an economist. He conducts monetary policy. He did a great job as the chairman of the Fed and kept us out of a prolonged recession. The politicians are responsible for the budget. They conduct fiscal policy. If you don't understand this...please pick up a book before you comment. So, blame the politicians for not speaking up about the war and running this country into the ground.

K Fox, Orange City, Florida

I can't believe some people, when they are backed into a corner, drop their 'terrorist hate our freedom' slogan and justify the war even if it was about oil to protect the american way of life, are actually acknowledgeing that we end other peoples lives, destroy another country, so that we don't change our oil guzzling habits! Shameful! Are we just another power hungry empire in the pages of history or are we the beacon of democracy and freedom in the world. Shame on us.

kyle, NYC, NY

If this was a war for oil, why didn't we just go in and get it? How come we don't have it? Explain that conspiracy!

Chris, Ardmore, OK USA

Greenspan is correct the war is about oil and strategic dominence in the region. This area is far too important to be left alone and the Americans who are the only Super Power will find any reason to dominate and project their power into the region and control it for their own long term interests.

All other expanations including nonsense about peace and democracy: arfe just that nonsense and just a story to persuade gullable people that their intentions are somehow justified and honourable.

Nigel Fenton, Hidden Valley Lake, California

Senility is not a pretty sight.

Dan, Lisle, IL

Will this spoil Tony + George's Nobel peace prize chances?
I suppose not .

John, Chadderton, England

Important to differentiate between wanting Iraqi oil and ensuring a worldwide oil supply. How the Iraqi's divide thier oil, how they price thier oil and/or who they sell their oil to is unimportant. Ensuring a stable flow of oil ensures a stabile world. Good work and thanks W.

Scott , Atlanta, GA

We went to Iraq to topple a dictator who supported terrorism and that Bill, Hillary, John Kerry and pretty much everyone else believed had WMD's. Democrats before the second Gulf War constantly said Bush left the job unfinished. That is one of the ways that Clinton found his way back from obscurity. Of course Oil profits are the only way the middle east has clawed its way out of the stone age and Oil profits are what make the middle eastern dictators dangerous. They can buy WMD's. How much oil or profit have we gotten so far? We went to Iraq for the reasons that W laid out. Does anyone think that Iraq was going to stop selling oil. We had a first Gulf War and did the oil supply to us stop at anytime. If we want oil we just buy it. Greenspan is talking about the stability of the Middle East and the Stability of the oil supply yes thats important but the reason we went to Iraq is to attempt to ensure the security of the United States.

Eric, Rio Linda,

Read the book first! I don’t know this, but I would bet that he said something to the effect that the fear was that Saddam, with the possession of WMDs, would have been in a very strong position to close off the oil supply from the Gulf. There nothing new in this, many people said this before the war. In fact this is one of the arguments for a strike against Iran.

Adam Gere, Burlington, MA

We are in the Middle East because of oil. Everyone knows that.
If Saddam, an evil despot, had control of Iraqi oil, and threatened USA
interests, of course we wanted him out of Iraq.

However, that does not negate the war against Islamistfacism, which is a world-wide threat.

The reasons for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were many and have been explained many times over. President Bush made the correct decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Andrea Winward, Dover, USA, DE

I think the Iraq war was started by the Bush administration for many reasons, ideaology, revenge ( Saddam tried to assinate the elder Bush), Isreal ( Iraq poses a threat to Isreal), oil, and possibly others. What is most dishearting about the war is the president that it has set. Based on the Bush doctrine of preemtive strike ANY nation that feels treatened by any other nation has the right to strike first. This has made the world a far less safe place for all and will have many unintended concequences as it gives this 'right' to all, including Iran, North Korea, China ( think Tiawan), Russia, etc.

Kevin, Williamsburg,

Yes, we should have left Saddam in power, thumbing his nose at the rest of the world for ignoring UN resolutions that he brought upon his country because he invaded another nation (does anyone remember Kuwait?). And of course we should have supported him in continuing the rape rooms, the physical and economic repression of his countrymen, the gassing, hanging and other mass murders of Kurds, Shiites, and others who dared speak out against him. My goodness, we should have had the hollywood types (such as Sean Penn) and the ACLU and others of that ilk visit Saddam and show their support of him, while declaring the USA the great satan. I just don't know how we could have gone so wrong! My, my. Let's wring our hands some more, bow down to Islam, and let Shia law take over. After all, we don't want to offend anyone, now, do we?

El Padre, tucson, az

I agree that it was to obtain the oil rights, there never was any WMD's and so the theme went to promoting democracy in Iraq. That theme is now a joke, as there is a major civil war going on among the various groups, Sunnis and Shittes, etc. We were not there to promote democracy - that was just a ruse to smooth over the fact that the WMD's were not found. This fact about the oil is nothing new to most people who have been following the real news behind the flash of the TV screens.

Mary, MIDDLETOWN, NY

What is the news --- Greenspan's OPINION does not mean that one should go out and support a liberal, socialist government led by the Soros financed Democratic party.

Steve, Cambridge, MA

funny thing about these "no war for oil " crowds , is, I've seen very few riding bicycles or walking everywhere they go .

Charles, springfield, ohio

Imagine that! The invasion and occupation of Iraq was for oil.
All of those casualties in vain. The snookered US public's tax money bilked by neo-cons led by Bush-Cheney. The coalition governments overriding their own domestic public opinion to get in on the loot.
The anti-war movement has been saying this from day #1 but only now does it become official because Alan Greenspan announces it.
Does anyone think it will change the delusions and mindset of the 305 or so who still believe that Saddam was tied to 9/11 notwithstanding that 90% of the perpetrators were from Audi Arabia, the Bush protectorate? As John Adams once said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

bill goldman, annapolis, md.

Has Greenspan been checked for dimentia?

Ron, Houston,

Well I guess even the neo-con leaders are starting to confess what most of us have known since the beginning.....

The neo-cons got what they wanted, now its the peoples turn...when do the war trails begin for Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rumsfeld?

charlie smith, lake city, usa florida

Finally some truth.

Oscar, houston, texas

Its Obvious That poor Mr greenspan Is Devastated he is no longer in a position of power And misses be asked on adaily basis how he feels about the economy. A Man of his extreme age has now begun the journey towards senility and I wish him well. As Far as The Iraq goes , Winning the war on Terror will stablise the Middle east and allow the free flow of oil which will be a benifit, but that is not the reason we went to war.

Fritz Harrod, Buffalo, New York

To Susan- No one ever said that Saddam was the architech of 9/11, it was Al-Queda. However, everyone from GWB to the Clintons believed that Saddam was supporting them in many different ways. There are transcripts of speaches of major Dems before the war that verify this. The Russians were major supporters of Saddam & now Iran. Captured documents revealed this. 40% of the world's oil supply go through the Straights of Hormuz. It is imperitave that we continue to have the free flow of oil at market prices. I was an adult during the last Arab oil embargo & that was nothing compared to what could happen if the wrong people controled the oil. Who would be hurt the most? The poor! They could not pay $10.00 a gal for gas, nor could they pay for all of the rest of the price increases that would go with it. At this time there are no alternitives but to drill for more oil that WE can control. It has been said that conservatives abhor war but liberals fear war. We must defend ourselves.

Luke Thornton , Hoover, Al

Attention children of MoveOn.org, et. al., of course is about oil. Imagine not only Iran but al-Qaeda controlling that oil. But it is more than that. The whole thing has to do with who controls that region, China, Russia and Iran, or us, period. That has been, is and it will be the bottom line. The problem with the adolescent and selective "anti-war" children is that they think it only us who want control of that region, just because it fits with their self-loathing white-guilt burden: only we are the bad guys, if we could all "just get along" and start walking to work the world would finally love us.

J. Amoros, Hudsonville, MI, USA

Quote:" The US and Britan are dependent on oil. Our economic way of life are what they are because of it. If it was suddenly cut off our way of life, our economic power would collapse. I have no problem with protecting our interests even if that means we need to protect our access to oil."

Please tell that to almost 4000 US troops, wait almost forgot that little number of over 1 million Iraqi's. Your right though who cares about that, we need that OIL!

John Diego, Hellville, Ca, USA

To those who say "So what, we need to protect our access to oil," let me remind you that you are essentially advocating the murder of thousands of innocent civilians in order to protect "our way of life."
i.e. "Murder is okay if it serves my interests."
This is who you are. This is what you believe.
At least it's out in the open now.
And by the way, Al Qaeda was created by the CIA to fight against the Soviets in the 1980s. Governments kill innocent people all the time to line the pockets of the rich. It's what all wars are about. Wake up.

Sean, Atlanta, GA,

What a shock! Let us see what happens to the West's penchant for liberalism should the oil cease to flow from the Middle East. When economies fall like a house of cards and recessions and depressions slam into the EU and USA, and when unemployment figures leap into high double digits, reactionary intolerance will sweep across the political landscapes like a locust plague. And the pseudo-liberal left will be marching in front demanding military action and tougher immigration enforcement.
It's too late to reflect upon the moral ambiguity of global capitalism and mass consumption as a way of life - it's the only game in town and, without oil, the game is over.
History has shown us too many times what happens when enlightened societies get slammed by economic disaster and there's nothing to indicate that things have changed - the need for self-survival will make barbarians on both sides of the gate.

Harald Kasper, Herndon, Virginia, USA

This shows how bias Alan Greenspan is. Isn't he married to an NBC reporter? So, what do we expect from him.

Juan Morrow, Spring, Texas

I can't believe Greenspan has the nerve to question King George's and Dickhead Cheney's motives. He apparently has no "resolve" and probably isn't patriotic either.

Ed, Whitesboro, NY

Isn't it about time that we all faced the fact that Mr. Greenspan has a few synapsis' missfiring at this point in his life? He seems to be a firm believer in his "majestic opinions" over the pase several years, fully certain that what he has to say must be taken as G-d's word in all things.

Unfortunately, he has been right as seen by the utter fear and gravity with which the nation has clutched its' collective heart whenever he has opined on any of a number of topics.

Stop filling your drawers when he has a "senior moment" and makes such a foolish claim, certain that you will all suddenly faint at his given truth. The interest in oil was a concern with respect to a sudden attack on oil lines, but it certainly wasn't the primary concern. Why not admit that everyone, Liberal and Conservative alike, was certain that WMP were in the hands of the Iraqi nutcases.

Ron Oster, Mentor, USA Ohio

Until everyone in the U.S. and U.K are willing to live by candlelight and ride horses then it remains hyopcritical to crticize a government for ensuring the protection of the primary source of energy upon which its people depend to live and work.

Whyile I do not subscribe to the view that the war for for oil alone but I do say that it is a legitimate governmental concern.

Ken Dogood, Davie, FL/USA

Great way to distract from his own responsibility for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, one that he could have averted but failed to do so with the way the Fed under his guidance controlled the interest rates. Like everyone else, wants to stir the pot about other's inadequacies to cover his own.

Alina, Miami, USA

I believe that inserting intelligence forces in the region (between Iran & Syria) was more motivation than the oil. Our weakened ability to gather information was exemplified on 9-11.

As for me, I still believe that if we do not engage them on their turf... we WILL engage them here...

Again!

Howard Ino, Orlando, FL, USA

So how much oil have we obtained from Iraq since this all started. Zero, zip, nada.......

Michael, Maricopa, Arizona

well at least someone senior from the establishment is facing up to the truth.

Everyday we are saddened by the American lives lost in Iraq and those of Iraqis also.Our hearts & prayers go out to the troops fighting this senseless war which appears unending.

Kahn, san hose,

Anne from UK is wrong. She "has no problem with protecting our interests even if that means we need to protect our access to oil". If she is ok with killing for these purposes, then she has no problem being killed by people with interests different from hers.

Ed, Los Angeles, CA

Anne of London - you are absolutely correct! But Greenspan is also getting a bit soft in the head and certainly swayed by his far-left - and far younger, "journalist" wife. Simply put, if we went to war for oil we would have simply taken it and gas would again be 24 cents a gallon/litre.

Don DeVan, Knoxville, Tennessee

Afghanistan and Iraq bracket Iran. Bush hoped the "modern" Iran would topple the Ayatolahs and disrupt al Queida's drive for regional and world domination.
The strategy does seem to be sucking the Islamic Jihad into Iraq instead of attacks in the US.. Incentive for Jihad recruits to fight US troops in Iraq would be about the same as the encouragement and emboldment at us doing nothing after 9-11 ... maybe less after the surge success..

Edward Montesi, New Bern, USA / NC

It's obvious Bush's policy was tainted by greed for oil money and power -- else we (US) early would have set up the same oil revenue sharing for the iraqi people that has been successful for the people of Alaska. Can you imagine the hearts and minds we would have won if every iraqi family would have gotten an annual check for several hundred dollars? Iraqis also would have been motivated to protect the oil infrastructure.

aisgreen, Georgia, USA

about 90% of the world's population already knew its because of iraqi's oil and anyone that supports the destructions of iraq would get their own fair share of the severe punishment that is coming down on the key players

yakinn bello, oakiland, usa

As a megalomaniac, Saddam Hussein posed a threat to many civilized things...including oil flows to the industrialized world. No revelation here.

PS. Should we expect Mr. Greenspan to see the world in any terms other than economic? An. No. Consequently, Thomas Barnett's geo-political analysis puts Mr. Greenspan to shame.

DanS, Denver, Colorado

Thank the Lord someone highy respected in America finally said what most Americans have known for years. I hope as an American to see politicians on both sides of the aisle squirm a bit now.

Alan Willis, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Duh. Of course the war is largely about oil. Without oil this country ceases to exist as we know it. So this is just another reason to go over there and kick Sadam's ass out and try to bring economic stability to the region.

Any person who has a brain should have figured this out long ago.

Beckster, Lost Wages, nv

That is normal politics for each country , including USA.

Kurashew Alexei A., Samara, Russia

If it's all about oil it's the most expensive oil we've ever paid for! Ridiculous.

Richard Young, Mapleton, USA/UT

There is no question that Desert War (1990) was about oil.
But remember 9/11 was an attack on us and taking out Saddam was necessary to prevent al Queda from using Iraq as a launching pad for its nefarious aims. Many Americans don't want to acknowlege this because of their hatred for GW. Also remember that Greenspan's wife was a member of one of the left's leading liberal news teams so I'm not surprised at his "confession".

Francis F. Skiba, San Antonio,

And this is a shocker to everyone? For centuries the Brits were very good at creating wars and civil wars to keep their interests safe and the prices low.

garba maigoro, KANO,

Amazing how Mr. Bubble forgot to mention keeping the interest rates too low in the late ninitys to give us the "tech boom." Then Mr. Bubble keeps rates too low for too long to give us the "housing/mortgage boom." Mr. Bubble should really be called "Mr. Rollecoaster." This guy has caused more pain for more people then any war in the ME.

xhha69b, NY, USA

Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. What else could the Iraq war be about 4 years later?

Loren Hunt, Athens, Georgia

It's about time someone told the truth about this war. Death for oil was the name of this war. Oil was never free.

Bro. John cosmas damien, El Paso, TX. USA

"AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan,..." probably should speak of things of which he has at least a working knowledge; finance - and leave the nation's security to the patriots.

Joe Drager, Wilkes-barre, Pa

Your news article fails to note that Mr. Greenspan also claimed that Amelia Earhart was alive, well and renting his basement apartment.

Dave, Atlanta, Ga.

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

Need we say anymore?

Eric Reagan, Brattleboro, VT

Well, Gore Vidal said it, rather matter of factly, from the very beginning. Of COURSE it's about oil. WMDs, evil-doers, Freedom, Democracy, blah, blah, blah--convenient covers
for the plutocracy's tax-payer financed armed robbery that
is the "global war on terror."
"He who controls the spice controls the universe."--Dune

hmm, Atlanta,

The war was also for Israel. Greenspan, being a Zionist, does not want us to realize that. The next war for Israel is with Iran.

Dr. Watson, Los Angeles, USA

Duh!

Jack Holman, Spring, Texas

One thing people haven't looked at is the fact that Greenspan is just an angry old man, ticked off, cause Bush and Rove, told him it was time for him to leave and get someone younger in the position. Since Mr. Greenspan is NOT part of the Iraqi War Planning Group, he would have NO idea the reason. He is just a flake with nothing to do now, but complain.

Larry Whitehurst, Madison, Wisconsin/USA

Are the people in the White House really that 'shaken'? hmmm? Anyone in the whole world, who has any common sense, knows that the main reason for the Iraq War was for oil. It always was and it is now. Hence the mess the country is in now, in general. Are they really that dumb?

Peter Monahan, Hampshire, UK

True!!! All about oil.

ken loveless, austin, usa/texas

Really? Well, were is all the oil then?

Dax Gardner, Manhattan, USA

The invasion of Iraq was about oil? *smacks self in forehead* No, ya think?

artemis, Felton, Delaware, US

I'd say that his extremely liberal reporterette wife,Andrea Mitchell,finally got to him.

She may have reverted to waterboarding.

Tom Neal, Boulder City, USA/Nevada

As well as a war over oil, the Iraq war was also about securing oil payments in US dollars rather than payments in other currencies like the Euro.

Nicholas Steffens, Sydney, NSW

Okay and the problem with that is?

John Anderson, Chicago, USA

Wrong wrong wrong!!!

The US invaded Iraq for falafel, the one culinary
delight that is not well explored in the US.

Paul Balciunas, Redlands, CA

There you have it, a republican who is telling the truth. And who benefited from the invasion? The American people? Try Dick "Shot Gun" Cheney and George "I really never read a book" Bush.

skyreader7, Fort Worth , Texas

How many have said that only to be labeled conspiracy nut-cases, left wing lunatics or worse. I have no doubt Republicans and the Administration will try their best to label Greenspan so.

What now, though? We’re pinned in Iraq as long as we insist that we can’t leave Iraq to a civil war. That becomes the logical puzzle and our gut check. Do enough Americans believe that Iraq’s civil war is an acceptable collateral damage, even if it draws in its neighbors? Is that the wicked genius of this errant war? Getting us pinned may have seemed the way to stick us in place until the oil can flow.

Calculated sacrifice is the mark of an experienced strategist. Is it time to accept the sacrifice of Iraq? Is it the least cost approach of the unsavory options? Is the price of oil in a civil war climate a poison pill? Being stuck there is no nutrient to America, but are there figures that can show which course is most damaging? Where are the people that can figure that part of the puzzle out?

JVene, Tampa, Florida

There is no way the free world could allow a madman like Saddam Hussein to control the flow of oil in the middle east.
Our entire ecomony would collapse and that of other Western Nations. Why the President never made this clear to our citizens is beyond my understanding. The President's bigest mistake was in not allowing the military a quick and decisive victory like General George Patton would have directed.
We can still complete the mission but only with clear objectives and a supporting Congress and People.
Right motive, wrong action.

Dan Katich, Fallbrook, USA/California

Absurd, simply absurd.

David , Burke, VA, USA

Greenspan is right. Fascistic Muslims and Saddam's model non-threatening behavior had nothing to do with the need to topple Saddam.

D. H. Stefanson, Birmingham, AL

No way...really? This guy is brilliant!

Thomas Jones, Austin, TX

Enough of Greenspan already! He about ruined the economy with his constant interest increases. Why cannot these people just go away quietly. Carter, Clinton, Greenspan just leave already!

dan, St. Louis, MO

I'm Canadian but live in the States. I and all my Canadian relatives, and relative and friends of other nationalities KNEW before the invasion that the war was about oil. I believe that 99% of conscient people in the world outside of the U.S. KNEW it was about oil.

Alexa, Boston,

Can that really shock anyone?

deb, cincinnati,

Hi,
Of course is Mr Greenspan correct. What is condescending is the violation of international law by the invasion of Iraq, in the name of human rights. There’s no oil in Darfur.

Terence Hale, Zandvoort, Holland

good for greenspan!!!show it to the man

kevin, hiram, ohio

While obviously not a lie, this is a tad economical with the truth. Specifically, the Iraq invasion was to protect the petrodollar cycle, and the US grossly over-consumptive life-style. Five percent of the world's population using 25% of the world's oil supplies. Not generally known, but from November 2000, Saddam began to sell his oil in Euros. The US bought some 66% of this Euro-priced oil. Had other countries followed suit, the entire US economy and hegemony would have been in jeopardy. The petrodollar cycle means in order to buy oil, a country first has to buy dollars, and the oil-producing country invests said dollars back in the US. So as the dollar slowly depreciates, the US essentially taxes the rest of the world. Among other things, this funds the US military, which is bigger than the next 20 nations' military forces combined. Essentially the US has its own money tree.
The 9-11 attacks? You figure it out.
Character limit prevents full disclosure.

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Kanagawa

Too bad for Alan Greenspan. Clearly an economic genius; now a Beltway has-been. He just couldn't fade into retirement gracefully.

Liz Smith, Portland, Oregon, USA

He is old and married to a real left winger. He should have gone to a rest home where he belongs!
Sorry, I have now lost all respect for him.

Linda Steinhauser, Rogersville, AL

no one will be surprised except a handful of Americans in the mid-west and small towns

robert, Berkeley, California

Does it matter if oil was ONE of the reason? No, because it wasn't the ONLY reason. Even if it is a "war for oil," that war has been going on for over a half century. Place whatever label and however many labels you want on this phase of that war: "war for oil" "war against terrorists" "war against the spread of WMD's" "war against Islamic fascists" "war to move the battle field away from the USA" "war of the US defense contractors," ...etc. The most important one is weather it is a "war to spread democracy to a region that has never known democracy during the entire history of the world." The outcome of that latter one is what the world should care about. Oil is not going to be important for much longer in the World's economies, but democracy in the Middle East would be important for the rest of history.

David, Frederick, USA/MD

A little past his prime perhaps.....but NEVER forget who whispers in his ear at bedtime.

Sam Russo, Las Veegas,

That is his opinion, it is based on nothing. My opinion is that Bush thought that bin Laden would go to Iraq when run out of Afghanistan, and could get his hands on WMD'S. I'm sure that the CIA had the same worries.

kathie , Boulder, Colorado

People just don't want to hear the truth. Saddam was our puppet, and just stopped listening to US.
So we had to get rid of him.
Human lives are not important as long as we get the oil.

sh, scottsdale, az

If it's really all about oil, wouldn't it have been easier and more convenient to invade Venezuela or simply uncork the rigs off the coast of California and the Gulf, and tap into the fields in Alaska. It's asinine and pathetically simplistic to think that the president can flip a secret switch under his desk and control either the cost or flow of the world's oil supply. Maybe if the so-called "progressives" who whine so much about the environment and the evil oil industry would change their talking-point tune about nuclear, coal and other energy sources and loosen up on taping into domestic oil sources, we wouldn't have to worry about the Middle East as a source for anything we need.

MDWhite, Los Angeles, CA USA

The wife of a liberal journalist, Ms Greenspan implies the war is based on oil? Please explain...

Bobby Iwabucci, Bismarck, ND

It has been untold times that I have said it was about the oil. My family always has known it was about the oil. Our men and women are fighting and dying for a president and vice president who wanted to take over the control of Iraq's oil. They had no right to and I thank Mr. Greenspan for telling the truth. Many people will be so surprised.

Vicki, Haughton, LA

This is not a suprise to anybody...

Iraq is all about oil.

A, Acton, London

He's right. It is sad that most American's can't listen to the real reasons why this war was being fought. It was not JUST about oil but partly and importantly about it. What's not right, is to frame the context of this quote in a light that's not adjacent to the reason. Greenspan realizes that Saddam was a bad actor, most did, he wasn't called the "butcher of bagdad" for his niceties and pleasantries the man was brutial. He also had a place in the oil industry that was formadable and could, if he so wanted to, fund foreign terrorist groups against the US. He had done it already against Israel, he had reason to facilitate fundamentals against the US and it was a necessary cause to eliminate his threat. To think otherwise would be causious and futile by any president whose purpose if first and formost to protect the American citizen. I applaud Bush for what he's done. Most won't. Most run from that statement, but he did a great necessary thing by taking out Saddam and helping America.

Joe K., Estero, Florida

I guess sabotaging an ongoing war effort is Ok if you're 81 and need to sell some books before you die.

Kahn, Leesburg, Virginia, USA

I think he( ALAN G.) really does not like the man who showed him the door. Remember who his girlfriend is when ytou think of his mind set.

Jeff, Farmville, US/VA

Of course it was about the oil. if we ever learn what really happened at Cheney's top secret energy meetings prior to the war, we would know the details of the deals that were done with the major oil companies.

rpa, Seattle,

WOW, what a surprise! Who would have thought??

Ines Radman, Split, Croatia

Dear Alan:
Retirement suits you. If you must entertain, stick to inciteful economic gibberish instead of inciting foreign policy assertions.
Of course a hostile Iraq was a threat to oil supplies. You're just thinking small, though. Think high stakes geo-political conflict that spans North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia. Jihad, Oil, Nukes, Missiles, currency fraud, drugs, WMD, Rogue States all play a part as villans. Just cause Oil is one of many threats doesn't make it causal.
From someone, however high placed in the Bank, unlikely to have attended relevant meetings, I'm certainly interested in any proof to support the impending "Ah ha, see Bush lied" chorus. I thought we were supposed to believe that Iraq wasn't any threat? It was!?
What part did Greenspan himself play in the US precarious economic position? Isn't this his area of expertise? Plenty of blame about policy, but the very real security threats remain.
War for Oii is a simpleton's grasp, below AG.

Sashland, Ashland, OR/USA

Yeah, and the price of oil has just plummeted since we took on the Hussein administration hasn't it? After ignoring UN resolutions year after year (that Iraq had agreed to comply to) to monitor the weapons of mass destruction that they had not only used to kill tens of thousands of Iranians during the Iran/ Iraq war that they initiated -and that resulted in total deaths of over 1 million people- Saddam then used the same weapons on his own people. The Kurds had entire villages including women and children gassed for reasons as simple as "insulting" Saddam. He killed from 100k to 300k people in his own country for reasons such as being accused by his secret police for violations, refusing to have sex with his sons Ouday & Kusay, being mentally challenged, being Homosexual. etc, . Mass graves found all over Iraq and still being found. There were terrorist camps in several locations to train people to attack the West and it was about oil? And, we hadn't bought oil from them for years!!

Donald Wells, yukon, oklahoma

Well Halleluiah!

Brian, Rutherford,

Greenspan unfortunately suffers from Jimmy Carter desease. A desperate need to protect his legacy, which wasn't very good , massive inflation of the money supply and two crashes. Dot coms and now housing. His utterances will become more desperate as the chickens come home to roost.

John Anthony, Bowen Island, Canada

Finally,
Someone, a republican of high office finally speaks the truth. Only a misinformed citizen, or someone who watches too much Fox News would believe that this war was not for oil. Thanks Mr Greenspan. Hopefully, more republicans as well as more influential people in power will come forward and make this knowledge more common place. Of course it is all about the oil. So is any aggression against Iran. North Korea always claimed they had nuclear weapons and would use them but we didn't attack them....why? Because they are not influencing a commodity that we use and that Bush been involved in and that gives tons of money to the Repugnicant party. That commodity being......yes you guessed it ....... OIL. Operation Iraqi Liberation.

Cameron Mitchell, Boothbay Harbor, USA Maine

It's so difficult for a proud country to take the first step and come out to admit to an addiction. Oil has become the muscle of life and we as individuals grow weaker by the generation. Our slave oil has become our master, there is no moderation for the weak.

Mike, Houston, Texas

I thought it was for broccoli

mike, dublin,

Remember, Greenspan is a Republican who believed that Bush behaved like a Democrat when it comes to domestic spending. Greenspan is a Republican because he doesn't like how the Democrats support policies of high taxes and runaway spending. Greenspan also didn't like how Bill Clinton bombed Iraq in December 1998, "Operation Desert Fox", for having WMD.

Fabian Palomino, New York, NY

Whatever his faults and past mistakes, Saddam Husseni was trying to establish in Iraq a modern techological and industrial society. To do this in a Moslem country requires very determined and authoritarian leadership. Saddam could not possibly have succeeded if the mullahs were accorded any degree of freedom - witness Iran where the Shah's attempts to secularize the State were immediately reversed when the mullahs came to power. It follows that the last thing Saddam would have done would have been to support Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the epitome of fervent religious belief. It follows also that the last thing Israel wants is a determined potential technological society on her doorstep - a society that would be unfriendly and sits on a mass of oil that would give it enormous strength and competitive advantage. The influence, if not control, that Israel has over US policy is quite sufficient to explain the US invasion of Iraq under the guise of an excuse obviously false.

B.W.Thompson, Eastbourne, UK

Duh..no kidding..we knew this in 2003

dave, stamford, ct

Yes, the war was about oil- making sure that Iraq's oil didn't fall into the hands of Iran or Syria- If we started the war for obtaining oil from Iraq-well- we have had ample time to take it away-haven't we?? Greenspan may be a respected financial "guru" but where is his common sense? As far as I'm concerned he has very little of that!

Ray Speck, Glendale , Arizona/usa

It's sad to see some of our elder leaders like Alan Greenspan and Jimmy Carter going off some sort of deep-end in their twilight years. I'm a firm believer that age bestows wisdom that deserves to be heeded, but let's consider a glaring problem with a "war for oil" theory:

Why has the U.S. not taken possession of a single oilfield? Why are U.S. gasoline prices three times what they were at the time of the invasion in 2003?

Andrew Pottenger, Leawood, Kansas, USA

The truth is out. The Emperor has no clothes. It took Allan Greenspn to tell the truth about what everybody has been afraid to say.....To quote author Linda McQuaig ,..Its the crude dude!

helen macdonald, st.sauveur, quebec canada

I guess when you get to 81 you don't care what people think of you, shame he didn't say what he meant when it mattered.

Terry, Beijing,

Finally someone admits the truth... I am \ was a Republican until this head fake war..There may be hope for the party. The war has destabized the entire area.

Perry, West Chester, Ohio

Whatever his faults and past mistakes, Saddam Husseni was trying to establish in Iraq a modern techological and industrial society. To do this in a Moslem country requires very determined and authoritarian leadership. Saddam could not possibly have succeeded if the mullahs were accorded any degree of freedom - witness Iran where the Shah's attempts to secularize the State were immediately reversed when the mullahs came to power. It follows that the last thing Saddam would have done would have been to support Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the epitome of fervent religious belief. It follows also that the last thing Israel wants is a determined potential technological society on her doorstep - a society that would be unfriendly and sits on a mass of oil that would give it enormous strength and competitive advantage. The influence, if not control, that Israel has over US policy is quite sufficient to explain the US invasion of Iraq under the guise of an excuse obviously false.

B.W.Thompson, Eastbourne, UK

I was not shocked to hear to hear that Alan Greenspan, declared that the reason for the War in iraq was oil, did not surprise me. Come on lets all be honest now, we new that , and for crying out loud the Bush Family are in the oil business.

Diane B., Winnetka, Ca

No duh, Greenspan.

Andrew Morrison, Vancouver, BC, Canada

I am always amazed how some of these people when they leave government decide to tear down the Administration that they have worked for . . .if the war was for oil .. .who in the name of God will we ever know . .but when people start making statements that they consider "fact" . . .I get worried.

JosephLeppard, Houston, TEXAS, USA

Assisted living is the only option now.

James, Sacramento, USA

The man has the brains but should have had the balls to speak out long ago.

But it reflects the climate of fear that existed in our so-called democracies under Bush and Blair if the top people, including British generals, are only speaking out now.
A state of fear characterised by the phrase '' you’re with us or you're against us''

K Urban, London, UK

Alan needs to shrivel up and go away. His book or comments are not helpful to anyone but his legacy and book sales. Go away Al!

Fusionhead, CA, USA

went long at $48 - the only way is up - welcome to the new trading low of $80 us crude - at least greenspan had the plumbs to say it

fash molai, new york, new york

I AGREE!!! It's about time they admit it

Bill, Buena Park, CA

I'm shocked. Shocked.

And here's a late-breaking news flash. So was the Vietnam War.

tony Wills, Miami, Florida USA

This from the guy who really caused the Ression of 2000-2001. I guess he wanted remain chairman after all... Joe Knight

Joe Knight, Winston Salem, USA/NC

It's always about oil.

Jack P Hardy, El Cajon, CA

Of course it was about oil. That is in our "national interest", in fact that is our interest. How the hell would the U.S. work without oil? And please do not equate oil to gas. How could we wath our Plasma and LCD hi-def TV's without plastic, plastic derived from oil. It should come as no shock that oil had something to do with this war. I do not se a whole lot of people sacrificing anything especialy in a Hummer.

Jason, Tampa,

If the war was for oil, then tell me....where is all the oil? We are paying more for oil than we did before the war. Was this for oil company profits? And what about 9/11. Have we forgotten what Arabs did to our country?

Bart, New York, NY

Doesn't everyone know this? This is completely justified, BTW.

Reginald, Tyler, TX

Operation Liberate Iraq. = O.I.L
Peak oil is a scam manufactured by the oil companies to create artificial scarcity and drive up profits for transnational oil cartels. It was first originated in 1956 by Shell Oil's M. King Hubbert , who said that only one and a quarter trillion barrels of crude were left, a figure that was surpassed at the end of 2006. According to Hubbert's original calculations, the planet should already have produced its last drop over nine months ago.

By pushing peak oil theories and tying them in with the man-made global warming fraud , Bilderberg seeks to jack up oil prices to the point where the living standards of the middle class become unsustainable and the west is lowered into second world status while fat cat elitists reap the financial and political bounty.

simon fezzick, London,

An American who can tell the truth, at last. Maybe we can all start to move forward.

Howard, Johannesburg, RSA

The American people 'knew' the motive long before this...but failed to recognize that the big lie Bush and Blair told the world would eventually lead to the end of the American influence in the world at the beginning of the 21st Century. It was all about power and influencing the control and distribution of middle eastern oil.

Wildspirit, Hemet, CA

This should be a boost to what Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been saying on foreign policy. It's a shame it takes this long for people to wake up. I'm sure some people believed it to be for things other than oil.

Victor, Parkersburg, WV, USA

I like how this article seems to paint a picture that Greenspan and Bush are buddies since he is a Republican. Has anyone taken a look at what Greenie has been saying about Hillary? I think this article needs to paint a picture of the whole story, not just what looks good for their audience.

Case, Denver, CO

This helps reinforce the conspiracy that 9/11 was in inside job. Invent a mild disaster, grab the oil revenues, keep the public fearful and obtain power was the Administration's motiv operandi. The United States is truely becomming a Banana Republic whilst being more "Nazi" in their expansionist views than the accused.

Todd Replogle, Capitola CA, USA

It's time somebody finally said it. police state is next

mark, el paso, tx

Why else would we involve ourselves in the mid-east, sandy beaches? There's nothing wrong with having tried to aquire the least expensive energy. However, it;s become problematic. Let's get our own energy; gulf, pacific and Alaskan oil, along with nuclear. Tell the middle easterners nice knowing you. If they still insist on this Islamist insurgency, level them.

Rich, Palm City, Fl

Well, this should bust the hidden "bubble" of Georgie Porgie and his gangstas; sounds like the ole man is getting a little senile and mouthy; bet ya' next he suddenly "disappears" for his comments and revealing this info to the public, who by the way has know this from the GETGO folks! It's just nice to hear the confirmation from someon in the "know" so to speak. Now, how about the REAL TRUTH regarding 9/11?!

Dana Priest (NOT the d.c. reporter), azle, texas

Not that it wasn't known before it is unfortunate, actually tragic, Greenspan waited so long to confirm it. Aside from the costs in terms of death, loss of limbs & mental health problems, the utter irreparable destruction of an entire society all might have been avoided had he spoken out sooner.

The Bush administration's false assertions about Iraq are similar to those currently being lodged against Iran. Should Americans fall for Bush & Cheney's foolhardy drive to strike Iran it will be the worst disaster in US history -- worst than Iraq. Perhaps Greenspan's book will prevent that from occurring this time around. We'll wait and see.

serena1313, Dallas, Texas. USA

Everyone above cretin level knows that the world is fueled by oil, not maple leaves, not wheat stalks, and not Big Macs. So why should this be any surprise? Until we all remove ourselves from the dependence of burning hydrocarbons, we will all be slaves to the ones who have the land over the pools of liquid hydrocarbons..... Lets get past this and realize that there are so many more sources of energy.....

Ugabuga, Negrocity, South Africa

alan greenspan's a monday morning quater back, and he should be hitting his knees every five minutes because his actions came so close to a melt down - if he's had rasied rated back in 99/2000 he would have had more headroom when rates were one percent - one false move at that time and we'd have been underwater.

lou, newport beach, ca us

I agree with Greenspan, and have always believed that the main if not only reason for invading Iraq was to ensure that the wealthy American elite could not only continue their lifestyle, but get richer in the process. I believe that the president himself will amass a huge fortune from this war. We all know that Cheney is pocketing millions from Haliburton....Sadly, it doesn't seem that anyone is going to stop them.

Fran, Seattle, WA

[sarcasm]wow. that's a shock.[/sarcasm]

wjb, Dayton, Ohio, USA

He also claimed that you couldn't predict the failure of Sub-Prime loans. You'd think a guy who has been in the financial industry for over 30 years would realize the risk in lending high risk people billions of dollars.

San, Washington DC,

Is anyone surprised by this? His opinions have some merit, but they also deserve scrutiny. He goes to the same parties with the same tired folks inside the beltway every weekend. After awhile, hey all just drink their own bathwater. Additionally, Greenspan is married to Andrea Mitchel, an American journalist who is certainly not known for her impartiality. Maybe he said it just so he can have peace at the dinner table....

R Langdon, Seoul, Korea

I am deeply disappointed that former Fed Chairman Greenspan has acted in sympathy with the Democrats in refusing to even acknowledge that, left in power, Sadaam would have posed a risk to the U.S. and the free world at least as grave as that posed by the present government in Iran.

Joe Fratolill, Miami, Florida, USA

I think Mr. Greenspan has been listening to his very liberal, reporter wife or at age 81 he has lost his perspective. I, for one , do not believe his claims and believe he should retire to the armchair. I have never admired him or his policies.'

Irene, Jacksonville,,

My say is that Greenspan is having a hard time recalling actual events, what he said when - and this is another case of the Brutus Syndrome - stab Bush in the back as soon as you can make a buck. These people have no sense of honor. Washington is up to its ears in apcray. There is no difference in party - they are all cut from the same sleazy tacky cloth.

Susan Skinner, Ellijay, Ga USA

So the panicky old man, responsible for every bubble and every recession since Volcker stepped down, is at it again. Who cares?

Fox, Bergen, NJ

Alan Greenspan:

"politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows"

He sounds like a Clinton!!!

Lawrence Stewart, Fresno, CA

Free flow of oil, yes. No shame in that.

Mike, Las Vegas,

It certainly is a interesting concept that he's saying it was because saddam was a threat to security of oil rather than oil itself.

The other would be how could he disrupt the security of the oil given there was no real navy...I highly doubt they could have invaded kuwait again...

Matt, Boston, USA

Thank you Alan Greenspan for telling us what the reason was for
going to war in Iraq.We need more top goverment people to tell
us the truth

James Parker, Como, Panola / MS

Blasphemy Greenspan! This man has not a shred of credibility left. Not only were his financial/fiscal policies second rate, but now, he has completely gone out of his leage to make a guestimation on political motives?!?!

Jason, Tempe, AZ

All the great Iraq leader had to do was to submit to United Nations Inspections and he would still have been in power today. I can not believe a person of nornal intelligence can believe that the path that Saddam followed did not indicate that he had weapons of mass destruction and would use them at the earliest opportunity.

Jaye Curtis, Atmore, USA / Alabama

good!

Demetrius, Camden, NJ

It may be splitting hairs, but Greenspan is known for carefully choosing his words. The Iraq war was "about" oil in that if the entire region wasn't oil rich the US would have no interest in it. Saying that the war was "for" oil has a different connotation I think and had he meant "for" oil I believe he would have said it that way. Again I may be splitting hairs.

Joe, New York, USA

Not so difficult......... we have to topple the oil industry and the control it has on Washington. Move to bio-fuel as a matter of a national emergency, do it in 2 years not 25.

Larry, San Diego, CA

Last time I checked Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the middle east. 911 was used as an excuse to gain a foot hold in the region in an attempt to secure a large source of oil.

James Sanders, Steger, IL

I understand that oil is a reason for mideast stability, but if thats all we were there for, wouldnt we be taking ours and have much less to pay to fuel up our cars.
Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism, better to fight them there. If we pull out of there now, give em time they will hit us again; its their agenda, if you dont believe that, back off on the koolaid and open your eyes. Nation building takes time, we are doing the right thing, and when the time is right, we will come home.
Our nation took some time to get it together, its not perfect, but at lease we are not killing each other like in the Civil War; oh, did that happen here, in the US? say it's not so!

Jason, Camp Bullis, TX

Wow..what a revelation...but not in the smug way you think...everyone wants to believe we were there to "take" the oil....we were there to preserve the integrity of the supply? Yes, to a great degree that was the reason...Hussein had everyone fooled when the emperor had no clothes....but hell, we weren't going to let it happen....

Davids, Knoxville, Tn

If Greenspan's claim about the Iraq War was only about oil and Clinton was a great man, well, hear what I have observed during his tenure as Fed Chairman. He allowed the economy to flounder while Bush No. 1 was president. He sat on high interest rates while we sank deeper into a recession. I remember the cries for Greesnpan to cut interest rates and when he finally did, it was too late. He cut, cut, cut, and kept cutting the rates but by then, the economy was too deep into recession for anyone to be able to go out and borrow money. That created a bottleneck. Greenspan is a JOKE and a HYPOCRITE!!

Nancy, Rayne, LA

If Greenspan (and all of the Bush hater's) were correct, gasoline would cost about a dollar a gallon.
If Greenspan (and all of the Bush hater's) were correct, American oil companies would have taken over - by force if necessary - all of the oil fields of Iraq.

The war is about fighting terror and about protecting freedom. Plain,simple and true. Deal with it.

Douglas , Pomona, CA USA

Yaaaaaawn. Yes, ultimately, it boils down to oil. But the invasion would not have occurred but for the threat of Saddam's nuclear program. In other words, had he been dictator of Madascar, his nukes would not have threatened the world's oil supply. So the argument is back to square one. Nothing new to see here.

David, Boerne, TX

Finally, someone from the dark side dares to speak the truth. By the way, have Jenna and Barbara enlisted yet???

Lilly, Las Vegas, Nevada

Greenspan is a blowhard. He wants to sell his book.
Ask Greenspan about bailing out the Russian hedge fund in 1998.

Joseph Rusnak, Buffalo, New York

Yes, it's quite a bit about oil. Not to take it from them, but to keep the leverage. I think people who scoff about it are dangerously short, sighted. Let primitive, animist/islamist bad guys give the leverage over to China or Russia? That'll be fun, won't it. Not like this awful war.

Lisa A, Greeley, CO, USA

Is there now any doubt that we were lied to about the reasons of invading Iraq? If that is not impeachable conduct, what is?

Boomer55, So Cal, USA

Bush is neither a Chamerbelein or Churchill, they were heroes & competent leaders, this President is not. Bush will go down in history as the worst and most destructive President in United States history. As a true American patriot I am proud to know in my heart that I never supported nor voted for Bush and I wish the remaining 30% or so who still blindly follow this incompetent President will finally wake up.

Andre Relis, Los Angeles, CA

Dare I suggest that dementia has finally set in. Since his retirement, Mr. Greenspan has developed a knack for being grossly inappropriate. Pandering to the media in an effort to pump up book sales merely mars his legacy. Let it go Alan....your glory days have long since passed.

Terri, Dedham,

Same guy that just said that he saw the sub-prime fiasco coming but didn't appreciate the impact, right?

Ron, Kansas City, MO

Honesty would be welcome from any administration, of course. However, what is so wrong about securing our oil supply? We have a Senate and Congress who won't allow us to drill our own (underpopulated area) oil supplies in Alaska, and we are a heavily oil-dependent economy/society.
I haven't agreed with all the choices and policies of this administration, and again I say I appreciate honesty, but I think it's extremely naive for people to say that the uninterrupted flow of oil is not of profound importance to our society.

RS, Dallas, TX

Greenspan was right on the money, but only partially. Do yourselves an enormous favor folks, and research the Bush family history a bit deeper. And while at it, research The Carlyle Group, where the Iraq oil picture can become a little clearer. Bush Jr. is just wrapping up daddy's failed goals for him, that's all...Iraq is not new business, it is unfinished business...family business.
I'm just suggesting to you to do a litle self exploration research into this, to draw a more informed conclusion. Don't expect the oval office to hand out the answers on a silver platter, they both won't and can't.

MP, AB,

Greenspan is obviously right, just follow the money. Who is benefiting from the war in Iraq, the oil companies. They win either way, if the war is lost, prices of oil go up because Iraq's production is down, and if the war is won, they win large contracts that would have gone to the Russians, Chinese and French. That's why those countries where against the war. BTW Iraq happens to sit on the second largest oil reserves, worth several trillion dollars, countries have gone to war for much less.

Michael Ross, San DIego, USA

Yeah cause Greenspan was in charge of Foreign policy... I forgot

Bill Chesher, Long Beach, California

I think it was largely about oil in the sense that oil revenue funds these regimes which are hostile to the west. Not sure if that is what Greenspan is saying.

Otherwise It doesn't make economic sense to essentially destroy Iraq's oilfields as a result of the war, in order to have more oil. Besides, we could have kept Iraq's oilfields after Gulf War 1 and did not.

Guess we'll see what he says.

Steve, Lexington, VA

ya think?

Chris, psl, fl

This is a surprise? If Iraq did not have oil, we would never have attacked. If Darfur had oil we would have been there yesterday.

beaterman, westham, wisconsin

Yes, it was about oil as we all believed at the onset of the war with Iraq.

Waldemar Bizer, Austin, Texas, USA

Its the oil stupid

john, Sydney, Australia

"the Iraq war is largely about oil"

I thought everybody knew this.

Alan, Yokohama, Japan

Yeah, OK, those gas prices here in the US have really dropped.

Moonbat, Boston, ma

Remember that Alan Greenspan is trusted, because he's honest.

L. Gruenwald, Twin Brooks, South Dakota

That's been obvious from the beginning. Everyone who understands the geopolitics of vital resources knows it is essential for the US to have its oil supplies in friendly hands.
All the WMD/democracy protestations were simply a smokescreen.

David Jenkins, Weybridge, UK

well, it took the ex- head of the US Federal Reserve Greenspan this long to realize that war is about oil????
and til this day the americans dont see this,

rami, amman, jordan

America shot itself in the foot and cried wolf to start an illegal war because it's out of oil and now must live within its means or conquer the Middle East.
Meanwhile the gov'ts of Canada and Mexico are bought and fixed to consolidate access to their neighbours' reserves.
Soon there will be another 9-11 which they will blame on Hugo Chavez.

Theodore Trout, Vict5oria, British Columbia

It sounds to me like senility is setting in for Mr. Greenspan. It's always so sad to watch formerly great men deteriorate.

Tom, Sacramento, CA

Why are we paying $3.00 a gallon then ?

GC, Hamilton, US

I'm fine with that.

Edward, Bellingham, WA/USA

Anything that involves the Middle East inevitably involves oil.

Michael, Santa Fe, TX, USA

My thoughts are extremely simple, and appearantly Greenspan has not thought all the way through it: on what day exactly did the U.S. or E.U. take even one barrel of oil with out paying for it? Show me this and I will be satisfied. Have a pleasant day all.

Nate, knoxville / tn, us

He's a pathethic old man enamored with a liberal news woman. What else can you expect? How does he explain our saving Kuwait and not "taking their oil."

Tom Briscoe, Yonkers, West. NY

Duhhh! for some ...Doh! for others

steve, lockhart, tx

Saving the world from the threat of Saddam's elusive WMDs, even though it was a pathetic and bogus excuse to invade Iraq, was always going to be far more glamourous and convincing to sell to the Americans than going to war for the benefits of Cheney oil company and the likes.

Glud, Paris, F

Alan Greenspan - tell us something we don't already know......it's always about oil, always has been- ever since the second world war!

Kath, London, UK

As we say in America...DUH.

Jay, clarkston, Georgia, United States

Well..............Duhhhhhh

But congratulations on standing up and being counted.

Martyn Millard, Calvia, spain

And this is called "New"s!?

Paul Kirkpatrick, Houston, Texas

It's hardly a new insight into the occupation of Iraq.

However, accepting this, there is still one big question: was the war meant to safeguard a cheap oil supply for the West, maintaining economic growth? Or was it meant to raise the price of oil, ensuring huge profits for heavily connected oil firms? In other words, was the war for cheap or expensive oil?

If it was for cheap oil, the war has abjectly failed. And all evidence over the last 30-odd years shows that the price of oil significantly rises with wars in the middle east. So if it was for expensive oil (and huge oil profits) then it has been a success.

And yet this alone has created many new problems: Rising oil prices have allowed new strength for Iran, Russia and now Venezuela. So if expensive oil was the goal, it has created new geopolitical rivals to 'the West', further political complications and potential unrest.

Des, Amsterdam,

Of course it was about oil supplies; it would have been totally irresponsible of Bush if it was not.
Obviously they have to pander to the current bizarre state of Western public opinion - which apparently believes that the West should allow itself to be starved of an essential resource; and that the resulting economic collapse is to be welcomed - by churning out the usual liberal platitudes.
Bush and Blair, thank God, had a competent grasp of the important issues on this; as did Themistocles who, by conning the Athenians into rebuilding their fleet, was able to save Athens from Persian invasion.

bill fuller, london, uk

The first priority of the invading army was to secure the oilfields. That says it all. This is not about people. Iraqis are expendable, because you can't fuel an economy with blood unless you do it through arms sales. Oil is not expendable. Because Americans (like most of the West - we are lapsing back into colonial times) like to think that someone else's oil is their birthright to spend like water, Iraqis had to die for it.

So this is definitely about oil. Specifically, it's about a complaint Iraqi puppet regime that will secure America's supply of oil for the foreseeable future and furthermore, sell it in dollars to prop up the currency. They will have been paid off to keep quiet.

Bilal Patel, London, UK

With friends like Greenspan who needs enemies. He is no Republican. He always was too buddy, buddy with the Clintons. I wish Bush would have gotten rid of all the Clinton people when he took over. They have all stabbed him in the back and the Country too. What an incredible loser he is. Thanks a lot Benedict Arnold.

Anita Salsedo, Fresno, Ca

Duhhhhhhhh...we all knew that...in effect..it is immaterial if we have the oil as long as we make the Iraqi govt sell it to our oil firms at lower than market prices...the idea is not to make gas (read petrol) cheaper to us, but to increase the profits of the oil firms. Actually the insurgency plays into their hands..they can make the Iraqis sign on the dotted line, while here at home they charge ever higher prices due to "attacks" on the oil supply. Halliburton and the oil multis are loving it..while the US and their allies are sacrificing the life blood of their children on the high altar of corporate profits...

susan huy, Ephrata, PA (USA)

That's what we call a blinding glimpse of the obvious, Mr Greenspan, even if it's not the whole story.

Mike, London,

Why does EVERYONE punk out and not say the two words that would explain this whole thing... SAUDI ARABIA.

Gary Swift, NYC,

Too little, too late

Joe, Fairfax, VA

Everyone is missing the point here. If we went in there for oil, I hope the oil is worth 1 trillion dollars because that is about how much this war will cost.

Besides the thousands of US and Iraqi and other lives. Maybe a better plan would have been to spend a billion or so buying in on other fuel technologies like corn and electric.

Just another example of how backword the world is.

John, San Diego,

Of course the war was about oil. Oil is the natural resource which makes Iraq important to the rest of the world. So the USA found it important to intervene in Iraq. We wanted a parter from which to buy oil, not to steal from. I don't think Greenspan is suggesting we steal oil.

Marty, Oregon, USA

The war had nothing to do with oil only in the sense that Britain and the USA did not go into Iraq to steal Iraq's oil but to keep it safe as a resource for the world at an affordabe price and to preserve it for the Iraqi people. If fact the USA is still pushing for a fair distribution of the oil wealth to all Iraqis.

Eric, Washington, usa

another person making an opinion not fact. its all about selling the book. why all of sudden now that he feels this way. we have to pay $20.00 to read it.

jerry, atlanta, usa

Who cares about what Greenspan says now? He had his chance to advise the president and his cabinet when anyone cared about his influence, but now, who cares.

The fringe elements of the USA are either uneducated and could not render a worthy opinion anyway. The elite elements.....we all know who they are who really hate Federalism.... do not care about the USA and they do not matter.

Joe Merculief, Kirkland, WA

Please be aware that the aging Greenspan's wife is the hard leftist and Bush hater Andrea Mitchell of NBC. While Greenspan's abilities to crunch numbers at the Fed are well known, his other political and domestic perspicacity are less clear.

kevin o kane, cedar falls, ia, usa

Is that a surprise? In the end everything in the middle east is about oil.

Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA

As Iraq patently posed neither direct nor indirect danger to the US, it must have been obvious that the real agenda was oil. However, Alan Greenspan's statement is important, albeit belated, as it confirms that which the international community of democratic nations had always suspected - that the Bush administration is a self-serving coterie of inept, power-hungry, men and one woman, who should never have been elected to high office. Bush, himself, should be impeached for taking the US to war on false pretences and should properly be indicted by the international court on charges of causing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people in addition to that of hundreds of American soldiers.

Michael HALPERN, London, UK

"The Truth will set you free"! May God Bless Alan Greenspan. Listen up all you bozo's running for the White House. You can't fool all the people all the time. In reality George Bush & cronies just fooled themselves and they will retain a legacy of being the absolutely worst administration this country has ever seen and, I hope & pray , the worst that ever will be seen. The obnoxious arrogance of Bush & company not only painted an ugly face on the Republican party but also on the United States as seen from an international perspective. Dubya Inc. spent American political capital, capital hard won since WWII, and has received very little in return. The mismanagement of this entire Iraqi debacle,sad to say, has empowered Iran and this fact alone offsets any other positives accrued by the conflict. Add to that the other costs in money & lives lost and that adds up to a painful loss with almost nothing to show. This my fellow Americans is the cost of voting in the wrong person,

BasilP, Chandler, AZ

I don't believe it!!!!!! Darn Libs... Anything for a headline...

R, Ventura, CA

It is not about oil in the sense that we invaded Iraq to loot their oil reserves. I have yet to receive my royalty check. However, oil in the Middle East colors everything. The free flow of oil is important to our security. The revenue from oil does help fund the mischief of certain evil men and regimes. If it was about seeking spoils, it would have been much easier to invade Canada, and subjugate Mexico.

Richard, Torrance, California

FOR JANET FULS

Dear Janet, u r so right that the guy may be partly responsiblle the actual "crisis" u r experiencing. but dear, it was not the interest rates going up quickly what did it. all the contrary you should blame the etremelu low (for too long) rates you have been having. good luck with ur mortgage

patximetralla, cadiz, spain

Its all about power stupids. Every conflict in human history and in the world today be it genocide in Darfur, dictatorship in Zimbabwe, Sunees and Shiites blowing each other apart in Pakistan, Taliban terrorizing Afganistan, Iran and USA fighting over Iraqi oil, Hamas fighting Fatah. Its the very nature of evolution itself.

Pete, Manchester, UK

Unfortunately, at the start of all of this, those few Americans who really did know what the war was all about, were shouted down and called traitors, by those Americans who knew nothing--or virtually nothing, and whom thought of the Iraq war more in terms of a football match, rather than a war where death comes to thousands. That's another truth many American choose to deny, now that things aren't turning out, the way Bush and company dictated that they would.

Nancy, upstate, USA NY

To the people claiming Greenspan is senile. He was and to this day a very respected public servant. Just in case you forgot, he ran the most powerful financial institution in the world for 18.5 years. I doubt any of you on this message board have the credentials that are even remotely close. What entitles you to critique his opinion and label him senile? So save your baseless comments for Jerry Springer shows.

Norman, Los Angeles, CA

SO......As if anyone with any since didn't already know.....The shame is they FAILED in doing this 2!

Eric, Houston, Tx

surprise surprise

duncan Roy, malibu, cA

Last I checked, the U.S. hasn't helped itself to any of Iraq's oil and gas prices in the U.S. have been going higher and higher. On what basis can someone claim the Iraq war has been about oil?

David, Lake Elsinore, CA

Of course it was for big oil. This administration has done everything for the corporate titans and nothing for working America. People aren't willing to send their sons and daughters to die for oil, so they lied and said it was to fight terrorism. And the lie continues. Now we are being told that the U.S. must stay in Iraq because we are now fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. But the truth is Al Qaeda only has a limited presence in Iraq; the admin has simply changed thier definition of enemy insurgents to "Al Qaeda." Our WWII leaders had the dignity to uphold the Geneva Convention. But to get the info they wanted, this admin changed the definition of torture to allow them to torture prisoners. Next they will define the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists as legal justification for attacking Iran and slaughtering it's elite special forces. The U.S. should be ashamed for reelecting Bush, and a vote for the current Republican party is a vote against everything America stands for.

Terry Hensley, Gainesville, FL

I'm not surprised...Anyone with any hindsight had this figured out. King Bush and his cronies knew what this was; an empire stretched thin. Oil is on its last leg, it is high time to reinvent ourselves. War answers nothing but confliction; which is exactly what these oil mongers want. An unstable Iraq means more profit for people who don’t respect sound trading philosophies…

adam, normal, illinois

The Iraq war was about an opportunity to clean up unfinished business. Saddam Hussein had violated multiple UN sanctions, was firing on US planes regularly that patrolled the No-Fly Zone, and offered a bounty to anyone killing US soldiers.
The attack on US soil provided the opportunity to finish him off and at one point it was believe that he did have weapons of mass destruction. The bonus was, once removed, the Americans would be welcomed with open arms and we would have cheap oil for years to come.
Bush took advantage of the momentum and finished Saddam off. Unfortunately he ignored Colin Powell who stated that once he went in, he would upset the balance in the region that Saddam provided.
Bush did not have the team that Bush Sr. had. James Baker could put together a world coalition and we would have been able tp pull it off. George W. could only put together a weak coalition that fell apart, so here we are with a dissolving mess that the Saudies and Iranians have assisted with.

Cole, Chandler, AZ

yes i believe it has always been about the oil. thats why everyone says that we will be kind to bush in history because he thinks that when the oil starts to go belly up america will have the iraqi oil. sad that so many have die for our lust and greed, sad indeed

carl, barberton, usa/ohio

Isn't it amazing how people who once depended on the government for their legacy, salary, and reputation finally find a backbone when they leave office. Mr. Greenspan is a dispicable person who now is trying to appease his liberal wife, Andrea Mitchell. The best thing he could do for Andrea is take a little blue pill and read a book by Kinsey or vice versa.

Shelby, San Antonio, Texas

To the Liberal minded people out there, from a conservative Republican on why I think we went to war:

1) Oil - Yes that’s right oil. I like it, want to drive my SUV, and buy cheap electricity from oil burning electric plants.

2) WMD's - I would like to drive that SUV without the fear of getting a permanent sun tan.

3) Building a forward military base to handle Middle East "issues". Yes, I get the distinct impression that we will be reaching out and touching Iran very soon, and possibly Syria. Also it will provide a landing strip for the Israelis to refuel.

4) We just didn't like Sadam's hair - He had a bad barber.

Kurt, Holland, MI

All these posts asking why he didn't show and tell earlier, forget that anyone who tried were ignored, harassed, and hated. Anyone remember freedom fries?

Howard, Oslo, Norway

Alan Greenspan is another in a long line of people who think they know everything. Mr. Greenspan also said he never saw the threat of subprime mortgages, yet he somehow is inside the mind of President Bush and his administration? Is Mr. Greenspan also inside Hillary Clinton's head from time to time, namely when she voted for the war after she consulted with Clinton administration officials who said Saddam must be removed? President Bush has stated over and over that a stable democracy in heart of Middle East will have devastating ramifications to oppressive governments throughout the MIddle East. Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to cooperate and he chose to thumb his nose at the United Nations. Most members of Congress in both parties and large majority of the public supported going to war, as did media coverage. If anything is clear, switching to oppose the war is opportunistic, unprincipled, historically disgusting, and tragically insulting to the families who serve.

E. Gorman, Virginia, USA

In other news, the Sun will be coming up in the eastern sky tomorrow morning.

Patrick, Fort Worth, Texas, USA

Dare I say it ... so what? Folks, oil is the fuel of capitalism. It transports goods, food, etc. So much of everything in our daily lives derives from petroleum. Hmmm ... anyone use anything plastic today? Next to water, oil is perhaps the most important commodity to the global economy. Although it sounds callous, it is more necessary to fight for oil than to waste our soldiers' lives on efforts such as Darfur, which is the latest liberal hypocrisy for military entanglement.

Trevor, Amarillo, TX

Who wants to read the memoir of an economist? No one unless you throw some dirt, some far-fetched allegations, something to stir both sides of the political equator to stir some sort of interest to actually sell a book or two. Otherwise you get a very boring book about money, investments...etc., that will not sell. The bottom line is that Greenspan doesn't offer a single bit of proof, just his "belief" that the war was for oil. Even the mentally challenged left-wingers believe that drivel and the moon really is made of cheese...I promise...I'm an economist.

Barry , Wichita Falls, Texas

I think its a good thing Alan Greenspan retired, I think he lost his mind.

Jack White, Kanab, Utah

The reason we invaded Iraq is that Saddam wanted to trade oil in Euros and not the American dollar. That would kill our economy. So, we invade Iraq, keep oil trading in dollars. Now, other nations are considering using the Euro, so do we invade those countries also?

Dr J, Georgetown, Texas

The inconvenient truth that everyone knows. Now, what are we going to do about it?

Arne Banan, Oslo, Norway

Let's not forget those lucrative contracts for arms and services! Those billions upon billions of dollars are keeping a few people very very happy. And the cost in lives ruined? Priceless.

Dan Reznick, San Diego, California, USA

I think it would be nice if Alan could prove it. I'll anxiously await the data instead of relying on his opinion.

Rndy, Glendora, USA/CA

Now you tell us what we already knew...Silence in the face of evil is tantamount to support of evil, Mr. Greenspan, so you have in effect supported the lies and manipulations of Mr. Bush by your silence. You were also silent while the seeds of the current economic collapse were being sown, so you are doubly damned.

Dayahka, Aberdeen, USA

Surprise! America wanted to secure its economic future by securing a steady flow of oil and a forward military operating base in the Middle East. If you don't like it, turn off your furnace next winter in protest.

Budge, Niagara, Canada

When the supply of oil decreases, the price goes up. In 2006, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell had profits of $180 million a day, the highest in their histories. Recently, as attempts to push through the oil law that would open up Iraq's oil for corporations stalled, a Texas company signed a separate agreement with the Kurds for their oil. What Greenspan is finally telling us (a true Republican, BTW, despite having served under Clinton, a neoliberal (aka, economic Republican)), is what anyone who had been paying attention would have known. Our greatest threat does not come from outside sources, but from ourselves, when we accept unacceptable behavior from our politicians as long as they wrap it in the garment of patriotism.

Fran, Addison, IL

Oil, Israel, bringing the end of the world, fundamentalist christianity destroying islam, whatever Bush wants is the answer

Bill Tober, Chicago,

Greenspan's comments on Iraq are merely his opinion. He has no more insight into the matter than does the average Joe.

He should concentrate on something he's supposed to know about - like the "dismal science" of economics and how his actions and policies affected us past and present. But limiting his thoughts to just that wouldn't sell the planned quota of books now would it?

Scott Marikis, Nine Mile Falls, USA / WA

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

This is news?

Deborah Taylor, Houston, Texas

This is a shock? Sorry, it's not a shock to anyone who has turned off their tv set and started thinking for themselves. Why wasn't the Downing Street Memo a shock when it had come out? This is just another reason to get rid of George Bush, and replace him with Ron Paul, who would get rid of the federal reserve, and put us back into the realm of the greatest country in the world once again.

Nick Dawson, Forked River, NJ, USA

Well while it is notable that Greenspan has come out and said this, it is more than likely still an opinion of an observer. As Fed chairman, Greenspan was probably privy to many things, but national security issues probably weren't on that list. I think you can just add one distinguished name to the list who think the war was for oil. But it doesn't mean he heard that from Bush/Cheney and co.

Matt, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

That's always been my opinion, as well.

Daveinsapporo, Sapporo, Japan

Well if Greenspan is correct, I guess a gallon of gas should be about $1.50 a gallon. Dam I so happy he KNOWS so much about the WAR !!!

Donald Tuleja, Fresno, Ca.

I really trust Alan Greenspan...the man who raised rates so many times he personally caused the last recession. And oh, yeah...he's married to Andrea Mitchell, a liberal newswoman from NBC who is very anti-Bush. No offense, Alan, but if George Bush had really wanted oil, he'd have gone after a country which had a lot more of it than Iraq. After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from a country called Saudi Arabia. I think that would have been a pretty good excuse. By the way, I don't like George Bush either, but then I at least try to be halfway fair.

Janet Fuls, Cottonwood, CA USA

I can not believe that this would be shocking or controversial news, many Americans have been discussing the integrity of the Bush Administration and the Iraq Invasion, since it was introduce to the public back 2003. The "War on Terrorism" or as I see it, the "Scam of the Decade", has been killing innocent people and destroying America's reputation and relationships with other countries, for decades to come, while more & more American's suffer from the effects of this war, economically and globally. I am happy Greenspan has published his memoirs in regards and looking forward to reading his book. But I am even more sadden that "We the people"as Americans, haven't challenged the ideas of this Administration and that we have forgotten, that in a democratic society, it's the people voices that make the changes. We need to wake up, speak out and stop allowing this scandal/administration, to destroy us as a Nation and our future as a "Super Power".

Melissa, New York, , New York, USA

Is this really news? Surely there isn't a single person in the world who is naive enough to think the West's interest in the Middle East is about anything other than oil?

John Kench, Charlotte, NC, Ex-UK

Greenspan appears to agree with Noam Chomsky who delineates a thread of historical facts re the western view of oil source politics throughout his recent book 'Failed States'. One may recall the grasping of threads of reasons for the invasion of Iraq leading up to early 2003 - first the al Qaida connection, then the existence of WMD's, followed, when that line was disproved, with the missionary position of rescue of the citizens from their dictator. Such grasping of straws does seem to reveal some other underlying purpose for the invasion. The oil route was a quick and easy excuse, but I am not yet convinced.

Name Withheld, vienna, austria

Its about profits for the oil barons, not for you or me or anybody else.

If he said it was FOR oil, then one could assume that this was a war to obtain control of large quantities of oil supply and reserves. However, he did not say that. he states that it was ABOUT oil. That tells us that this was economic in nature, and not material. The oil in Iraq is not for the benefit of us the consumers of oil, the oil drilling rights and the companies that will be doing the drilling are the ones that will profit very handsomely from it.

Rebel, Blackpool, UK

It's really something to read how smart this guy was while he was Fed chairman and even smarter now that he's reaping the rewards of a book deal .He's the one who was in charge before the big fall in the markets.

Renetta Bridge, Elwood, Ill

If it was for oil --SO WHAT. America and the rest of the indu
industrial world depend on oil----HELLOOOOOO----OHHHHH.The oil must flow or our nation comes to a halt. We can't say it because short sided fools in this country say things like "Hell no we won't go -we won't fight for Sunnoco". Hey if it were aluminum,titanium,or how about water,we would have to go after it. Food, we should demand a bushel of wheat or corn for a barrel of oil.

Dave, Tequesta, Florida

Of course that is the truth - oh wait... "We can't handle the truth".

Forrest Futral, Cape Coral, FL

Based on all the comments that Bill Clinton, John Kerry and others said about the weapons of mass destruction long before President Bush came to DC, I believe it was about weapons and our safety. But stablizing the Middle East will keep the oil flowing and I for one do like to drive my car. Better gas at $2.77 than no gas at all because they shut down our supply. When will people realize we had many attacks before 9-11 and before Bush was President? It is not President Bush but the crazies in the Middle East who are the problem. Do you really think everything is going to be great if a democrate is in the White House? We know one thing for sure...our taxes will be raise, small businesses will go out of business, unemployment will rise. Do we really want another Jimmy Carter economy...I think not.

lynn, Lauderhill, FL

Does the truth "HURT".

Now that our government lies, it will teach our kids in school to follow. Our leaders are really setting a great example.

Ron Jones, San Francisco, CA

Well, not a surprise. We knew this already. But I applaud his honesty

Stanley Buie, Jacksonville , USA/Texas

Shame on Greenspan for waiting so long to start telling the truth. He could have helped to prevent problems, rather than facilitating and encouraging them (e.g. no need to regulate derivatives, no restraint over monetary creation, massive asset bubbles are better than a mild recession). One good thing will come from his tenure - monetarism will be thoroughly discredited and put to rest until our collective memory of financial calamity fails us again in 80 or 100 years.

Scott, Hemet, US/Calif

Earth shattering... if you have been in a coma for seven years.

Paul , San Juan Island, Wa

If the war was for oil, how come we don't have any? I'm paying more for gasoline now than I was before the war. Sour grapes, Greenspan.

T.Parker, Gulfport, MS, USA

One has no difficulty believing the Iraq "war" has been "largely about oil," but whether it was that or the Bush administration's sheer hubris, the charge so clearly made by the oracle of the American economy demands thoughtful, serious reply from those who would replace the current occupant of the White House.

Bob Cain, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

So Anna of London killing innnocent men women children is Okay so you can keep on over-consuming?

Would it be okat if it Was Italians or Swiss we had to kill for oil and not Arabs?

Dr Paul Recher, Dorroughby,

Umm, in a word....DUH

Richard, Wasilla, usa/Ak

it is insanity ~ torture terror blood and guts for a substance that is killing the planet ~ a lose lose situation if ever there was one

skyz, miami beach, florida

oh oh! now it's time for Bush-ites to attack Greenspan! One of their premiere heroes for the better part of 20 years! Oh I can't wait to see this

James Shay, Houston, USA/TX

I feel anyone with their head out of the sand understands the main reason for stability in the mideast is for the safe passage of the oil that fuels the whole worlds economic engine. I don't think many people understand what a threat to stability the resentful Saddam was. Having been defeated in the Gulf war, does anyone believe Saddam would not have given BenLaden anything in his arsenal to use to get revenge for his loss? Where was the weapons of mass destruction? Who knows, but he had them to use against his own people, theres proof of that. Greenspan has been out of the news for awhile and trying to capitalize on the presidents poll numbers, low I feel because of the lack of understanding by the people with their head in the sand. Jesus, pay attention people!

Vic Starnes, Taylorsville , NC

Unless Mr. Greenspan had inside information he is just guessing as many people have on the reason for the war in Iraq , if it is true then he should not point fingers unless he can prove with out a doubt it was for that reason . This only serves to divide the country at this point in our history . It is easy to accuse someone of any thing but proving it is paramount to justice for all. Where do they come from, those that would accuse and not have the truth to be revealed and only speculation to make all wonder about, is it true or not . Sounds as if Mr. Soros has got to Greenspan

Ken Roberts, Lebanon, United states

Nothing more important to fight for than oil!

Robert , Lafayette, Louisiana

What a relief. Now that we know it's about oil, we can simply stop using the stuff and bring the troops home.

Unfortunately, without oil western civilization unravels in, oh, about (let's be biblical) 40 days. Without oil, there will be no food in the markets and as hunger grows, people will turn into mercenary thieves (those who haven't already, I mean). Nobody will have jobs, which will actually be a good thing since most folks would have no way of getting to work. Those who own guns, legally or illegally, will have a decided edge over those who don't. Society will break down before your very eyes.

Some of the brightest minds in the world have been working on alternative energy sources for 30 years or more now and we are seeing more uses of it. In my native Texas, we generate unthinkable amounts of electricity from wind, in spite of the fact that we're all greedy oil men. Still, it takes time and oil is with us for awhile. It's not about profit. It's about survival.

Ralph, Dallas, Rep. of Texas

I have heard/read so many diff. comments and listened to some ridiculous ideas about why we are at war. Do you honestly think the people would go for war over oil? NO! It's not just about the oil tho, you and I know it, if oil was part of the bigger picture, then what was the bigger picture? Did Saddam have WMD's? YES! Did he use them? YES! Did the Dems and Reps both agree on that? YES! If Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East, it wouldnt affect the US alone, and it wouldn't be just about profit! It would be about the rest of the world that would suffer as well. That Oil was never Saddam's to control, it belonged to the people of Iraq, who are now free, and who are now rebuilding their country after years of repression from a ruthless dictator who ruled the people with rape, murder, and fear. Besides, if we had never invaded Iraq and an Oil shortage occured the prices would rise and you would all Blame Bush like you do for everything else.

Brad, Myrtle Beach, SC

As they say in the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". In this case, the oil barrels behind the smokescreen.

I have no problem with protecting our interests. It would be foolish to do otherwise. However, having said that, all too often the truly powerful in our countries look out for their own interests, while using duplicity to tell us otherwise. If we are continually manipulat, misinformed and uniformed, it makes a mockery of what we perceive as "democracy".
It is as it has been for centuries, the aristocrats use the pawns to their own ends. Here in the U.S., our administrations and congress let Israel determine our Mideast policies, as they populate Palestinian lands and subjugate the Moslems and Christians there. This is the main reason we have problems with the Arab world, and now the 85% of non-Arab Muslims as well.

Of all things, we should be developing good relations with the general populations of the oil producing countries.

Don, St Louis, Missouri USA

Umm Clay, this country farmed, and was secure long before petroleum products dominated the landscape.

Life would be different, but I bet better... people would rely on their local farmer for food, knowing what goes into their food, and who cares for it. People would rely on local suppliers, and local people... the true meaning of community. We need oil, but we need independace from the ME, as well as independace from Republican business policies that run our country.

Dave, Jacksonville, FL

Everyone knew this from the outset other than the duped electorate in America. The Iraq invasion may be a Republican invasion but it was prepared by the Clinton Democrats. The deliberate breakup of Yugoslavia was a pretext to save the NATO alliance and use it to further West’s global agenda which includes the control of the Middle East oil. Clinton was able to camouflage this agenda by demonizing Milosevic. NATO leaders used the same process and methods to demonize Saddam and justify NATO expansion into the Middle East. US killed several birds with one stone i.e. they saved NATO by selling it as a peace keeping organization, broke up Yugoslavia’s socialist economy in the name of peace and expanded this process to control the oil producing Middle East.

Walter, Kamloops, Canada

This is a legit reason to impeach bush, it's a matter of principle of the American pride. Ben Franklin, those who sacrifice freedom for security to not deserve liberty/freedom. It makes sense, there are far worse odds in life than getting attacked by a terrorist in this country lets not forget that.

Shane Blanchett, Shawnee, KS

We have been in the middle east for over 60 years assisting the Arabs in extracting oil, and we in America get the oil at discount from the Saudis. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE TRY TO DESTROY A SWEET DEAL LIKE THAT??? Give me a break!

Marc C, Port St Lucie, Florida

Yea, I really believe what an 81 year old codger says about the war. I pay out the backside for gas here in this country. If the war was for oil...."WHERE IS IT"? Until I start paying 20 cents a gallon, dont feed me this nonsense Mr. Greenspan.

Chris, Tampa, USA

Question for Mr. Greenspan: If the Iraq war was about oil, then where are the revenues that we were told would pay for the war once we secured Baghdad? Stick to things you know sir, and leave the politics where it belongs; in the toilet with the politicians.

John M., Honolulu, USA

Greenspan is a lot like Henry Kissinger.... In reality wrong much of the time but never wrong in his own mind. Greenspan lusts to continue to be in the limelight and as a result issues dire financial proclamations from time to time, resulting in the market taking a hit for a few days until the lemmings realize it's just Alan being Alan again. Was oil part of the reason we went to war, probably, but just think how every day living would be without it or at seven dollars a gallon. Remember what it was like when that quisling Carter was president......shortages, long lines and high prices.

A.C. Guard, Cherry Hill,

This war has always been about oil.
President Bush saw 911 as an opportunity to knock of Saddam, thinking that the Iraquiy people would embrace the US as liberaters. But his idiot advisors lead by Rumsfeld and Darth Channey, thought they could go at this on the cheap, thereby ingraciating the American people.

What they failed to do was listen to their commanders. The net result has been the destablization of the region. And the money wasted over there could have been spent here in the US, to help us meet our domestic challenges.

Bush's legacy will be worst than that of Nixon's.

James Jeffrey Payne, Dayton, Ohio

OMIGOD!!! DUH!! The Iraqis know this, and anyone who has the capacity to think beyond an eighth grade level and who has even a smidgen of knowledge about the Middle East knows this. It is why the Iraqis are resisting turning over their oil to Western Companies, the so-called oil sharing agreement. Any Iraqi government that allows this to happen will have a shelf life of about three Friedman units or less. All those American troops, closing in on four thousand now, have sacrificed their lives to protect the bottom line of Big Oil and Big Oil services companies like Halliburton. And remember Dick Cheney is still awaiting his windfall of deferred profits from Halliburton when he leaves office.

R.T.Tihista, Sisters, Oregon

This dude is seriously influential. Everyone in the world (that isn't an American nationalist) says the Iraq War was about oil and it isn't news. Greenspan says it and it makes headlines.

McDoogle, California,

So where is all this oil Greenspan speaks of? Sounds to me like Greenspan just took a deep drink from the truther kool-aid

Tony, Lake Worth, USA/Florida

So Greenspan has become a moonbat. I'm disappointed. So where's all this oil that Bu$Hitler and the Rove cabal suppose to have been after? I guess they're putting it in secret underground oil reservoirs and are now controlling the upward spiral of oil ... muwahahahahahaha!

This ranks right up there with the reason for going into Afghanistan was to build a natural gas pipeline! Absolutely incredible. I bet he also believes 9/11 was an inside job. So where's the documentation for this whacko theory made mainstream by the left-wing nutroots bloggers?

Hankmeister, Champaign, IL

Just a way to provide publicity to sell a book? Why didn't he say this before...

Wing, Hong Kong, China

Close, but no cigar. Yes oil, but not for security reasons. After sanctions and 10 years of off and on bombing the idea that Saddam could attack anyone or might sponsor terrorist attacks is a laughable as the Blair/Campbell 45-minute threat.
The real issue was that Iraq was asking for payment in Euros.

Eddie Reader, birmingham, uk

Both views and motives stated are correct if you read the context of all the statements, current and past. We were not trying to obtain the Iraq oil for ourselves or else we certainly would have confiscated the fields after defeating the Iraq forces. However, we did see Saddam has a future threat to the stability of the region and the oil supplies as he had invaded Kuwait and had maintained his "right and justification" for doing so. Remember, even Muslim countries joined in the Gulf War - so they perceived Saddam Hussein as a danger. Major US newspaper reporters and Democrats tend to forget about previous administration statements discussing the "stability of the region" however the Democrats voted for this war as well. Now, being Democrats and wishing to gain political advantage they wish to insure our defeat. Was it stupid to invade? I thoght so, but admittedly the jury is still out .

Robert OLeary, Port Ludlow, Washington

The quote below is from page 14 of Rebuilding Americas Defences, the neo-con document published in September 2000, by the architects of the current Iraqi war.

".. the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

It is quite plain that the war was always about control of an oil rich region and never about the non-existent WOMDs, the non-existent Iraq-Al Qaeda connection or even about democracy.

The only people to have gained from these lies are the resurgent Al Qeada and the companies feeding at the Iraq money trough.

David Gardner, London,

The war is, and has never been, about oil, nor about terrorism, nor about weapons of mass destruction.

Greenspan is, unquestionably, fully aware of the true motives for this war.

However, in throwing out the "Oil" red herring, he inadvertently yet clearly makes the point that the Bush regime has not been honest about its motives for going to war.

Mary Thatcher, Raleigh, USA/NC

Well Mr Patterson. You, like the vast majority of your co-"journalists" are doing it again. "We do not have a brain", you say to us. "It is simply our job to reflect the world as it is, be a kind of mirror to mankind".

Sorry, you do have a brain, and a mouth. It has been known for eight years why American wanted to, and finally did, invade Iraq. It is explained in Bush Senior's National directive which opened the 1991 Gulf War. "Security of future energy supplies" was the watchword.

So, the latest Iraq war was about oil. But on the morality of it you, and your fellow "journalists" remain silent. Why? Because your highly paid careers depend on it. And while you do, hundreds of thousands of human beings die in war induced agony. Shame on you.

Peter Biddulph, Lickey, Worcestershire, England

Greenspan is absolutely right. The US is there to stabilize the middle east. The majority of the world's oil comes from that region. Think about what would happen if hostile forces gained control of that region. Frankly I'm glad the US is there. Everybody else should be too. Until we find alternative sources of energy and finally learn how to conserve, we've got to keep that part of the world stabilized. Yep, that part of the world IS about oil and protecting Israel. Always has been. Anybody who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand.

Jeff, Arlington, Texas

No surprises from Greenspan, everything he's saying in his book he's already said in his numerous speeches.

He's also opposed Bush's massive immigration program too.

Greenspan, the Oracle of the 21st century like the goddess Cassandra, he could see everything before it happened, told everybody but nobody listened.

Bummer, a few of us listened & wisely invested.

Screw everybody else, "you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink" should have been the title of his book. (Bush & Congress would be the horse) (newsflash he warned of sub-prime losses too, remember all those GSE massive liability speeches-oh that's right that fit hasn't hit the shan yet, shhhhh)

I imagine many folks will be downing Red Bull(s) & reviewing his past 5 years of speeches trying to figure out what's going on, guess what you're too late.

We have not scratched the surface of sub-prime losses.

Smitty , West Hills CA , USA, CA

Gee, an intelligent Republican. He likes what Clinton did and thinks Bush is an idiot. Too bad there are so few Republicans like Allan Greenspan, with brains

John , Edmonton, Canada

I am happy to see Mr. Greenspan's statement the Iraq war is about oil. I think the first Bush President made it pretty clear in 1991 that oil was a big part of the first gulf war, so it follows that it plays a significant role in the current Iraq war.

However, I think Bush's jihad to spread democracy and market economies to the muslim and other worlds is probably a bigger motive than just oil with Bush and Cheney, though certainly spreqding "democracy " by the sword is no less reprehensible than fighting a war to seize contol of the middle east's oil.

I think George Bush has proved himself to be the most dangerous President in history, and we have to survive 16 more months of increasing madness in the White House. No one is willing to stand up for sanity in the Iraq war nor to prevent an impending attack on Iran and possibly even Syria.

randolph Phillips, Shiloh, GA, USA

Funny, bribing Saddam would have been cheaper. No, I'm thinking it wasn't for oil.

Sam, Oxnard, CA, USA

Not that it wasn't known before it is unfortunate, actually tragic, Greenspan waited so long to confirm it. Aside from the costs in terms of death, loss of limbs & mental health problems, the utter irreparable destruction of an entire society all might have been avoided had he spoken out sooner.

The Bush administration's false assertions about Iraq are similar to those currently being lodged against Iran. Should Americans fall for Bush & Cheney's foolhardy drive to strike Iran it will be the worst disaster in US history -- worst than Iraq. Perhaps Greenspan's book will prevent that from occurring this time around. We'll wait and see.

serena1313, Dallas, Texas. USA

I believe this man is senile.

Gabriela, Alexandria, VA

Hallelelujah for Greenspan for the courage to speak the truth!

Alma, Tampa, FL

what people will say in order to sell their books.
i've lost all respect for greenspan

Terry, clearwater, FL

can't wait for the Republican Kool-Aid drinkers( Limbaugh,Ingraham Hannity, O'Reilly) spin on this I will bet any amount they say that he said this because of his wife Andrea Mitchell is in the Liberal Media and he wanted to please her.

Mark , Little Falls , New York

Of course it was for oil. The West could not allow radical Muslims to gain control of the life blood of the planet. Without free flowing oil, the world and possibly civilization comes to a stop. Modern society is built upon cheap energy that is provided by oil. There is no other option available at this time. We are dependent upon oil until Fusion power and better bateries are developed.

Dan, Titusville, FL

Duh.

T.K. Chang, Pelham, New York, USA

ARAMCO, the good oil days...and all Exxon-Mobile (BP, etc.) needs is a puppet government in Iraq that will make that sweet, crude deal again. I can imagine what Cheney has had to say to his operators in Texas..."Houston, we have a problem." Nice try, Dick.

Poland Romanski, Beverly Hills, CA

Good for him to state the obvious. It's the white elephant in the room and he has the brains and guts to acknowledge it and call it what it is. Hopefully he also has the hide to withstand the undoubted and unfortunate backlash he's likely to get from the White House.

John Parras, Houston, TX

Alan Greenspan is married to a prominent journalist in the liberal media and it seems, at his advanced age of 81 years, his younger wife is influencing his opinions and he wants to sell a lot of books by being sensational. I never really considered him a "Republican" by observing his actions and I think his book reflects his big ego. Where was all of this bitterness when he was working in Washington? The elderly Mr. Greenspan seems desperate to keep his name and fame in the spotlight. Also, very interesting timing at the publication of his book, isn't it?

Maria, Chicago, USA

Thanks to Mr. Greenspan, who is greatly respected in the States, we see yet another lie of the Bush/Cheney empire exposed. This can be added to the the lie which got us into war. Remember, we didn't initially go there to find Al Qeda or Osama bin Laden. We went there to find weapons of mass destruction. The lies continue. He recently promised a troop reduction. This essentially is a lie since the surge of just a few months ago is the same number of soldiers.

It's just a matter of time when the lies will be rooted to their source. The anniversary of 9/11 has many people questioning what happened on that day. Bush has used 9/11 to justify every military action and every piece of freedom-devouring legislation. He's arguably the most un-Constitutional president ever to serve. 9/11 is starting to haunt him. A recent Zogby poll revealed that 51% of the American public want Bush and Cheney probed for 9/11. Those who no longer believe the lie have finally reached a majority.

Robert, Port Chester, NY, USA, New York

Is anyone surprised by this, knowing Greenspan is married to Andrea Mitchell, a Democrat. She probably was the ghost-writer on this.

Vivian Fox, Vancouver, USA, Washington

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

This war is about oil. Bush wanted a client state to host our permanent military bases to protect the oil and the transfer of oil. Thanks to Mr. Greenspan for speaking the truth.

Tad Shelby, Santa Cruz, CA

I do beliveve that the war is about oil. But not oil for U.S. profit. If Saddam controlled the rest of the world's oil supply, oil prices for those countries' dependence would have been shaken and weakened their economic positions.
The left however, would have the world believe otherwise. Anything to demonize the west is ok in their book, just as it was during the cold war. Remember?

Roy Fitz, Lansing, Michigan

The whole world knew it was for oil right from the beginning...the people finding out now are just liars...

Hugh, London, Albion

Question: What is the difference between Zimbabwe and Irag?

Both had a leader guilty of murder, oppression and the people were suffering greatly.

I see no talk of armies being sent to Zimbabwe to protect the poor and innocent.

I can only conclude that oil reserves are the key difference

Peter Ridgway-Davies, Brewood, staffs

Why didn't the mainstream media confront the elephant in the living room? Why do they continue not to? Why does it take a man with Greenspan's credentials to get it printed?

Until the ever-present and obvious true reason for the war is discussed widely the war will not end and Iraq will remain in chaos.

Oil strategy was always the reason for the war, nothing more. But our media never reported this. Why is this only becoming news now? Too late!

Bill, London,

Hmmm... Oil is at an all time high... But the War was for oil!
Good Job Bushy!!!
Maybe Greenspan is starting to think and talk his age!

Joe, Broomfield, USA, Colorado

It is too bad that this publisher takes advantage of an old man and his senility

joe, Middleton, OH

It was about oil. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The us went to war to free
Kuwait and send a signal to the world that no one would be allowed to hold the world's oil supply hostage as Saddam threatened. The war with Iraq never ended. The treaty was violated, 17 UN resolutions were ignored. It took constant air patrols to bomb the no-fly regions, over 11 years. It took 300,000 coalition troops on the Kuwait boarder to convince Saddam to allow UN inspectors in--then he played shell games. All because
Saddam tried to corner the oil supply of the world.

Rob, Orange County, California

God bless this man! "Everyone" knows this is true but to have such an authority come out and tell the truth is wonderful thang.

Many people will listen to Greenspan has not have not been listen before.

Johnny Patriot, Austin, Texas

At long last, somebody with a degree of credibility has admitted what the Iraqi war is all about. We all knew it, the world knew it, the Iraqi's damn well knew what "shock and awe was about. What a sad commentary to have taken so many lives with still no control of the mechanisms necessary to sieze the oil, make more zillionaires and be hated by the world for it.

Big Daddy, Peoria, AZ

Oil???? Now there is a surprise.

Joe, Hammond, USA

This is news? Of course it is largely about oil. If it weren't for the world's dependence on that substance then there would be no reason whatsoever to give a rats ass about that god forsaken part of the world. Nor would bin Laden's family and his fellow Sunni terrorist-loving allies have the kind of coin they do to wage war on the west. This is nothing but semantics frankly. Until such time as the world does not depend on oil, oil is security.

ndh, Texas, USA

With the amount of whining we Americans do over gas prices, I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe Bush just wanted to shut everyone up??? Here's your cheap oil, damn-it.

Kelly, Killeen,

Perhaps if we were allowed to develop our own resources such as Alaska, costal oil or oil shale, we would not need to go to oil to protect oil supplies. What would the liberals do without the oil they need to fly their Gulfstreams to environmental events.

Daniel, Las Vegas, NV

The war was for the purpose of reducing oil availabity, so as to create panic speculation and increase the profits of big oil. No surprise when an oil man runs the white House.

Enoch, Toronto, Canada

Mr. Green SPIN is as off base about thia as he was about the condition of the stock market and screwing the country by raising the interest rates so much.
He could have cout off all those problems by lowering margins
to 10 or 20%.
It takes 12 to 18 months to see how the interest rate increases affect the economy.
To me he is just a self serving blowhard.

Pete May, Smithville, MO

We have always known that America's interests in middle east stability are related to oil supplies. As it has been succinctly put, If Iraq had been the worlds largest produce of broccoli, there would not have been a gulf war.

But the headline suggests that America was after Iraq's oil, and this is not so, and not what Greenspan says. America was after neutralizing a threat to middle east stability.

Paul, Pittsboro, NC, USA

It was about revenge,oil and power and winning the 2002 mid-term elections depending on whether you ask Bush, Cheney, Addington or Rove.

In all cases it was an illegal war of aggression and the leaders that lied about the imminent threat are criminals under both domestic and international law.

The tragedy of America today is there is no leadership willing to stand up for the rule of law and demand that these people be removed, indicted and brought to justice.

David Frenkel, Winchester, USA/MA

we thought the point of Greenspan was right, but some times need somebody to do this for the whole world.

sea, Guangzhou, China

I think it's about time Greenie went back to being cryptic... got to sell a book now I guess.

briefcase indicator, new york, ny

I have been saying this for the past six years. Finally, Greenspan validates what many of us knew from the onset. Meanwhile, we have lost much our constitution, many of our liberties, thousands of innocent lives, our economy and who knows what else... and all for what? Oil and those who control it.

C. FRITSCH, PH.D., Honokaa, Hawaii, USA

This article fails to mention that Greenspan's "...{S}tinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies" was a REFUSAL to Veto mush of the spending which the Congress had proposed.

Greenspan's rebuke of President Bush: Bush allowed too much spending by The Congress.

e w batsch, Louisville, Ky, USA

What's this? Everyone comes clean AFTER they resign, retire, etc.
How many innocent folks have died because EVERYONE comes clean when it's time to write their book, begin a new occupation, decide their conscience needs cleaning.
Apparently, the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children are not as important as having a prestigious job in government...

Shame on us for destroying everything our anscestors gave their lives for...

Johnny Doughey, Weiser, Idaho

This is the biggest load of tripe that I've ever seen. If this were the case then why are we paying all time highs at the pump for oil? Why not just TAKE what we needed. Greenspan is trying to take the pressure off of his obviously bad leadership in letting interest rates stay so high.

Ron L., Tallahassee, US/FL

No kidding. you don't say. Like noam Chomsky said, suppose that the worlds oil resources were located somewhere other than the Middle East. The South Pacific say and that Iraq's major exports were dates and rugs. Anyone who believes that we would have invaded to relieve the worls of a dictator and spread peace and freedom can't be reasoned with. That's most republicans incidentally.

Paul Bogdanich, Portland, Oregon

Saddam Hussein threatened the oil supplies? How? Without an army? Actually Saddam wanted to sell oil to the west and have the sanctions lifted.
Every excuse to hide that the war was made to eliminate an enemy of Israel.

Marco, Verona,

An eighty one year old man suffering from dementia should not be taken seriousy.

He helped destroy the stock market with innacurate opinions and predictions which never materialised.

Nicholas Sabanosh, Clearfield, PA

Poor Greenspan...senility set in so quickly.

Matt, Cleveland, Ohio

Invasion of Iraq was for oil? Here's another scoop: the planet Jupiter is very large.

Chad Williams, San Francisco, USA

Why didn't these influential people speak up about the war years ago. Before thousands of Americans were killed and 1 million Iraqis were killed??

Elizabeth, Las Vegas, usa

It was worse than for oil _ it was for revenage; lowly revenage !

Mohamed S Ahmed, London, UK

THE TRUTH, read all of Mr. Greenspans comments, not just those that fit your agenda. He said that HE had warned President Bush that Sadam posed a threat to the worlds oil supplies and thus the stability of the entire world was in Sadam's hands. This was HIS opinion, it does NOT mean that we actually went to war for oil. It is typical Greenspan-eese that he makes a shocking statement for publicity purposes and then comes out after and clarifys it. To bad that is how he choose to sell his book. It is my opinion that he was long past his prime by the time he left the chair.

sgt. spiker, Minneapolis, mn.

Another gem of truth:

"Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth." -Alan Greenspan

Doug, Minneapolis, USA

How refreshing to hear the unvarnished truth from a fellow American.

While this is an obvious conclusion to draw about our invasion of Iraq, Greenspan deserves respect for stating it publicly when our current culture seems to insist on pussyfooting around the bad behavior of the wealthy and politically powerful.

Deirdre Tisdale, Lexington, MA, USA

If it was about oil than the 1st Bush would have taken over Iraq. It's about our economical freedom and the President has an obligation to protect the U.S.'s interests and he has. Islamofacists have been ttacking us since the Nixon administration and now it's time to confront them or they will start taking over countries like Egypt. Wake up people nothing is as simple as we went into Iraq for oil. Why not attack Saudi Arabia or Iran for that matter. Why doesn't the press report more on France agreeing to now support ou fight? Greenspan created a financial collapse by allowing all this money to hit the streets and he is trying to hide his actions by focusing everyone's attention to Bush. Why so many bad mortgages now? Greenspans policies caused the housing collapse.

Charles Runyon, Rochester Hills, Michigan

Finally, someone telling the truth. Praise God.

Doug, Ocean Ridge, Florida

Too little too late, Mr Greenspan. I hate people who want redeem their conscience. You should have said something before when there was still a chance to stop this stupid war.

For those who are asking where is the oil. Guys, the administration doesn't care about the average Joe. Look at the record profits for all oil companies, defense contractors and other construction companies.

As Americans, you pay the bill with your lives and taxes for crooks who don't give a damn about you (not that politicians care much more about their people in Europe).

Fred, Paris, France

At least he is being honest about this issue even if he is stating the blindingly obvious.

Russel, Brisbane, Australia

hmm. Isn't this what we have been sying all along?

teresa, atascadero, ca

Ah, we finally get some acknowledgement from inside the Citadel...

To reiterate the famous saying, "Do you think that we would be as enthusiastic about Democracy in Iraq if their main exports were, say, lettuce and pickles, rather than petroleum?"

CPAinChicago, Chicago, USA

i can't figure out if greenspan just pointed out the emperor's new clothes or the white elephant in the room. cant wait for the drudge readers to start on this.

John, Columbia,

This looks like a very selective quotation, which probably distorts was Mr Greenspan really meant.

J Baustian, San Diego, California

Well, duh....

Blake, Seattle, Washington

Well ... If we are to infer by this that we are oil-grubbing thiefs then I'd say that the Pres' plan isn't working out, is it?

Where's all the OIL?

Jimmmy, Clovis, NM

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”
Well OK now, finally someone from this administrations bed fellows has spoken the obvious truth!

candid, Austin,

While I think the war has been a mistake I don't believe this. If Bush and Blair wanted oil they just had to ask Saddam for it.
I think they were trying to turn the whole of the middle east into democracies, to ringfence the oil supply, but took no notice of experts who told them they will just end up fighting each other.

Steve Byrne, Christchurch, UK

Whatever happened to the word called the "TRUTH" ? It has long been forgotten not only in politics but in many other fields.

My feeling is we may never know the 'real reason' why Iraq was invaded by the U.S. - we can only guess by making an estimation of the situation in the States and the middle east at the time and trying to piece together some sort of answer based on what we believe are the true facts - and not on what anyone tells us.

If you do this you come up with a very plausible (in the political mind) reason for the invasion.

Louisa bojhison, stockholm, sweden

The war was so Israel could keep the land that it stold from the Palestinians.

George White, kc, mo

To the Canadian, the existing US federal debt load is now around $180,000 USD per family of four.

Perhaps Greenspan is now tryng to atone for some of his sins...he's 81, you know.

Saddam was trying to convince OPEC nations to drop the US dollar (they sell oil in USD) for selling oil in Euros. Oil is all that backs the USD...that and everything we Yanks own, and then some.

Now we will invade Iran for regime change because rumor is Iran is selling oil in Japanese yen. So off we will go.

Brits, you have the pound sterling, so I hope you don't follow us in again for ever more unwinnable scenarios.

Nan, Wellington, Nevada USA

I want people to read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Please note the general theme of which this act was made national policy, the near unanimous support for it, and the president that signed it. What was the motive for the Clinton Administration to want to make regime change national policy?

Frank, Seattle,

WELL....if it was for oil...when the hell is going to start flowing this way?

Jim B, Pgh, PA

So what? Don't the Liberal buffoons understand that oil is critical not only for our national security, but for our survival as well? Without oil, our farmers can't plant, grow, and harvest our food. Without oil, the food the farmers grow can't be delivered to our supermarkets and to the world. Without oil, most Americans could not get back and forth to work. Without oil, how would coal be transported to our power plants? Without oil, how would our military function? Without oil, life would be very, very different and difficult for us all.

Clay Knight, Perry, Florida

If Mr. Greenspan felt Mr. Bush'seye was on the oil, why did he not state this during his time in D.C.? Must not have been that important to him then.

Cheryl, Cuyahoga Falls, Summit / Ohio

If Greenspan actually believed that the "war was about oil" then why did he not resign his position and speak out at the time...rather, he waited until he retired and got a hefty, hefty book deal!

Erika, Austin, Texas USA

It is very sad how many people in america are lying for hold their position.It everebody knovledge that oil is behind this war but will cost america more than profit that can they get from steeling anothers property.Yuo see dolar it may have son no value becouse this croock that are behind this war will destroy usa economicali for trillion de dolars america was able shop for the oil honestly in many places .This coutry always complained the Soviet Union is danger to the peace,now we may see soviet union do not exist and we see who is duing the war hungry imperialist Thanks you

Rudo, Miami , usa

Another courageous patriot waiting until he has nothing to lose before going public with the truth (for a profit)

Thanks Colin, Alan et. al.

Mark Steele, Sugarland,

History will show that the stock bubble and the housing/mortgage crisis was due to Greenspan's leadership. Perhaps he reconizes this, and his memoir includes block buster "opinions" designed to distract us. On a contrary front, I challenge the notion that the war had nothing to do about oil- -who said that? It was about 30-40 reasons, but protecting US interests means everything economic--and oil is the top commodity for the world economy.

Greg McMorrow, San Jose, California USA

Oooh! You don't say. I shocked!

David Hosea, Bloomington, Illinois

Well yes it was for oil-we can't get to work like Fred Flinstone!

I mean does anyone think that American will just put up with $10/gal fuel if Saddam had managed to take Saudi Arabia.
Grow Up!

Greg L. Winchell, Marysville, Wa

Where in the hell were all these people when we needed them? How many Republicans are going to tell the truth now that they have book deals. Why couldn't they tell the truth when it might have made a difference.

Rot in hell Greenspan.

Kate Henry, Corvallis, OR

It is undeniably true that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East. America has never allowed herself to be in a position to beg for oil. Past administrations have not allowed it and Hillary Clinton will not allow it.

brad, Abilene, Texas

It is fascinating how writers provide shaded truth, and readers ignore reality. Greenspan also wrote, "Whatever their publicized angst over Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction,' American and British authorities were also concerned about violence in an area that harbors a resource indispensable for the functioning of the world economy.." The entire world had, and still has, angst that another oil rich nation is acquiring the bomb, and worst, will use it. Those who ignore the threat, may become fall out in the next few years. Most economists agree that there is about a $15/ b war - fear factor in world oil prices due to Iraq. What will oil cost if London is melted?

RLH, Maryland, USA

The civilised world has a choice. They ( USA & others ) can stay in Iraq and keep Iran and other power hungry countries from trying to get control of the oil fields and then effect control over world oil prices.
Remember than Saddam was paying $25,000 U.S. to each suicide bomber who attacked Israel. He was exporting terror as well as killing more Iraqi people than this whole war that started in 1991. Those are the facts. Any idiot who does not understand this clearly can line up behind Hillary and Ubama.
Liberals have a choice. They can decide it is better to let the westerm world have major influence of the production and sale of Iraq oil or they can side with the taliban. It's a very simple choice.

MARK SMYTH, TORONTO, ONTARIO

Of course stability in the Middle East was a consideration, along with all the other considerations mentioned in the State of the Union speech, and other speeches, prior to going into Iraq.

If Bush had wanted oil, why aren't we bathing in it now? We could have joined the corrupt French in the oil-for-food scam as well. Want oil? There was as much oil available as we allowed Saddam to sell.

No, toppling Saddam was about much more than oil. And if stability in the Middle East as a reason for going in is a surprise to you, then by all means, get yourself a t-shirt proclaiming it.

rodger thomas, springfield, va

Even if the war was for oil, let us not forget the man was a tyrannt he rape and killed little girls and women, and don't forget he killed the Kurds with WMD. We as Americans need to stop looking at oil as our scape goat. Look at it this way if American women and girls were being killed and raped on a daily basis by the President, wouldn't we want someone to come in and help us. So anyone out there who has young daughters or wifes look at them, and be happy you were not in Iraq during Saddam's govt'.

Bob, Phoenix,

Oh, so that's the reason why gas prices have gone down!

Patrick Fortune, Geneseo,IL,

Somene asked, "Was it worth it?" As in, was it worth it for the US to abandon any conceivable moral basis for it's foreign policy by invading a sovereign nation using trumped up intelligence, misleading public statments, polarizing the Americn people, losing over 3500 American lives and countless thousands of Iraqis, and costing 500 billion dollars?

If you need to ask if it was worth it, you don't understand how grave this administration's blunders have been to the US.

Conrad, San Diego, CA

I think the US was most concerned that Sadam Hussein was siphoning off much of Iraq's $17 Billion annual oil revenues and planning to use this money against the US, for example by expanding its program of offering large rewards for killing US soldiers. However, I also found it disturbing that the US fully expected to take over those same revenues to use them to pay for any needed repairs to Iraq made necessary by the US invasion. I think the US itself should pay reparations for all death and damage it has caused.

Emma H., Ottawa, CAN

Well bushie and the silly americans that followed him are getting their come uppance while the rest of us pay for fundametalist parasites on our country. The latest lies, e.g. al qaida in Iraq etc., will also end up exposed as nothing more than lying propaganda, e.g. our own state department says that no more than 5% of attacks in iraq are by sunnis using the al qaida label to fight occupation. By now we americans are so stuck in provincial arguments that we are becoming irrelevant to the rest of the world, e.g. how dumb and out of it did bushie look at the recent APEC conference. The price we pay for corrupt politicians, press and military, e.g. Petraeus.

walter smith, houston,

So we went in to stabilize our oil supply - is that a bad thing ? I don't think so. People seem to forget that this whole Iraq fiasco [all the way back to 1991] could have been avoided if Saddam was just able to live in peace with his neighbors. Saddam was the one that decided to invade his neighbors and threaten the whole region [and others who depend on the oil]. This could have all been avoided if Saddam wasn't a meglomaniac. So don't demonize Bush - you and I would have had to do the same thing if we were in Bush's shoes.

Lawrence, Sacramento, CA, USA

Anne from London: So how many innocent iraqis (including children) would you kill to maintain your way of life? If a holocaust of Jewish people would help boost your economic power, would you support it? I know that is crass, and you're just trying to be practical, but I don't think it's an ethically sound argument. Though Peter Singer's "Solution to World Poverty" is the opposite extreme, it's more correct. Isn't it our fault that we supported a system that built our economic power on the back of a limited resource? Why should others die?

Joe F, Jacksonville, FL, USA

Is there somebody out there that doesn't know this already? Duhhhhh. There are other reasons for the war, but oil is 90% of it. Saddam was not only sitting on a load of oil, but threatening the rest of the middle east, and therefore threatening Europe's and the U.S.'s oil supply line. If we had let him overrun Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the people crying about the war would be instead crying about the lines and high prices at the gas station. The U.S. is going to be caught between this rock and a hard place until we decide to implement oil conservation measures.

RJ, Angelus Oaks, CA

I'll believe the "mock shock" about Greenspan's political schlock when the greenies and dems all agree to live a life oil free.

How many will die worldwide if you cut the power today?

newKeith, Fort Lauderdale, FL USA

Let me try to sum up this contention in one word for all of America.... "DUH!"

KYLE, IRVING, USA

The State of Colorado in the USA contains 1 trillion barrels of oil in various forms. Why the US does not drill and extract this oil is beyond me. With the largest oil reserves in the world, it's obvious Americans have no interest at all in energy independence. Americans should stop buying gasoline for one week to protest. it will make the oil companies oil inventories so high, gasoline will drop 1 dollar, in one week.

Christian , San Jose, Costa Rica

Who cares? The supply of oil could be considered our greatest national security issue. Our nation runs on the stuff and would be crippled without it. If we're going to go to war over something, shouldn't it be oil?

Michael, Fairfax, VA

Greenspan should either keep his mouth shut entirely or confine himself to saying the equivalent of "Goo Goo Ga Ga," as he did for 18 years as Chair of the Board of Governors.

Stanley Langbein, Parkland, FL

Greenspan is a true Republican. A libertarian, one to be precise. This leaves him effectively without a party. The Bushies, and their major constituencies, want an activist government that pushes an expensive moral agenda, that not only invades your pocket book like the democrats, but wants to invade your homes, and deprive you of your liberties as well. Business, now, only sticks with the Republicans for tax cuts. Otherwise that have little in common with todays Republicans. Unfortunately, this is an economically sucidal, and political winning combination now.

Kyle samuels, Watsonville, California

The sad thing is that this is considered news. I've personally never had a problem with Iraq War supporters who acknowledge that this war, like most others, is over resources. It's those that cloak themselves in the mantle of "freedom" and "democracy" or even "fighting terrorism" that turn my stomach.

Edgar Williams, Whitehall,

Most Americans knew it was about OIL and REGIME CHANGE.

However we had to lie and say that it was about WMD and disarmament, or else the British and other allies would not have joined us in the war.

And by the way, thanks for all the help. ( Ha ha, suckers ! )

Eelpout Burger, Minneapolis, USA

It's an opinion based on nothing yet you weak minded believe anything that fits the hate mold.

Tim, simi valley, CA

you all that buy anything without proof are scary

Rosie, Thousand Oaks, CA

Alan, the economist, is so old he still advocates "guns & butter."

Doc, Oviedo, FL

Well, if it wasn't for oil why is one of the much touted "benchmarks" that the Iraqi turn over control of their oil to the American and British oil companies?

Trader, Los Angeles, US

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Gee, thanks for the opinion. Next time please don't wait 5 years to express it.

John Douglass, Apple Valley, CA

Is there anyone who still believes the war was about WMD? This is hardly a revelation.

Bob Arthur, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA

Shock, horror - I'd never, never have guessed in a milion years it could possibly have been about oil or power.

Bob, Tustin, USA, California

Where's he oil? Greenspan needs to stick to subjects he has a clue about - economics.

Ryan, Austin, TX, USA

The white trash house sickens me

Wayne, Boston, MA

And the walls keep crumbling...

RL, Coconut Creek, FL

A question--is Alan Greesnpan an authority as to why we went to war in Iraq?? I doubt it.

Mary Meins, Jacksonville, AR

It's a pure shame to see and elder gentelman lose it. He was the Fed chief for 18 years.
To say Iraq was for oil is just insane.

Jim McCaulley, Columbia, Richland/ SC

This is ridiculous... of course it was about oil, among other things! Keeping oil wealth out of the hands of a murderous dictator who was using it to spread terrorism - of course in that respect it was about oil. Plus removing someone who would use the Iraq oil wealth as a weapon against the west.

But if oil were the primary reason we went to Iraq, as Whorley commented, where the heck is it? I second that wholeheartedly!

Greg, San Diego, CA

was it worth it? ask the mother of an Iraqi child these gangsters murdered. ask the wife and children of a soldier who came home without a soul.

comeoffit, Los Angeles,

Mr. Greenspan has more credibility than all the fools who are currently occupying the White House combined. Of course, he isn't saying anything any intelligent person hadn't figured out long ago. It's just unfortunate that he didn't feel the need to say this sooner and spare the lives of thousands of American and British troops who went to an early grave.

I look forward to reading the half-witted responses from the knuckle draggers who've been link to this story from the Drudge Report. Still think the Earth is flat, dimwits?

Robert, Fayetteville, NC

If it was all about oil, how come we aren't getting any? And why aren't the Iraqis paying us back for the cost of the war with oil? Sorry, but Alan, at 81, is getting mentally feeble. We're not seeing the oil he claims we went after.

Carol, Grand Rapids, MI

It sounds to me like Alan Greenspan has finally gone quite senile. If the United States and the Coalition went into Iraq for oil, it looks like they failed in that endeavor as well.

Hedley T. Nosworthy, Upland, California

Memo to Pam in Kingston, Washington: There was never a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. The War in Iraq was clearly about something else, and Greenspan is spelling out the obvious.

Gary, Milwaukie, OR,

He said it. So what? Every thinking person and every honest journalist came to this same conclusion years ago. The only news in this thing is the question; "Why is this news?". The real story is why this is not a generally accepted fact. One is forced to conclude that most of the mainstream media is either massively incompetent, or systematically derelict in their duties, or they were willing accomplices in the deception. I don't know which of these I consider the lesser sin. Both strike at the heart of the requirements of a free people.

Sy Lentze, ny, ny, ny

Will someone please telegram this to all our service personnel in Iraq, then print in large letters and drive it up and down Whitehall and around Parliament square.

Paul Davis, London,

Mr Greenspan said that "everyone knows that the Iraq War is largely about oil.

When Greenspan uses the pronoun "everyone" I assume he is talking about the people that he knows and trusts. After all he was once considered one of the most powewrful men in America.

He knows what he is talking about and i believe him.

Michael Morrissey, Longwood, Seminole Fl

Where's the oil?

Seymour Butz, vancouver, canada

History is not going to be kind to George Bush.

Dai Hunter, London,

They are all geniuses. I am glad I have them looking out for my best interests or who knows how much I might screw up!!

Garth Adams, Winnipeg, Canada

Gnomic as ever - about getting future access to Iraq's oil or securing present access to Saudi Arabia's?

Peter Mott, Wakefield,

I believe that taking the war to iraq was not in retaliation for 9/11. And although I do conceed that oil was one of the motives for going to Iraq, I also believe that we had to have a show of force after 9/11 and what better place than one of the most unstable areas in the world which did and does possess an indirect and direct threat to the United States.

If indeed the war in Iraq was fought for what Mr. Greenspan contends, that it was for oil, then I do hope there is enough pooled intellegence in the government to take advantage of the that fact and stake a claim to a sufficient quantity of that oil to pay for the costs of the war.

Alfred F. Marton, Poway, CA

Hmm, interesting, I didnt know Mr. Greenspan had access to MILITARY INTELLEGENCE and was getting STRATEGIC DEBRIEFINGS from the White House! He was the Federal Reserve Chairman not the head of the CIA! What a joke!

will, South Carolina, SC

After the threat to America from 9/11 and Saddam's support for terrorist organizations, it hardly had to do with oil. While the oil supply is important, it was never the reason to stop Saddam. This is a ludicrous claim. Look at where we are today. If it was about oil, where are the oil companies and drillers and refiners exploiting Iraq? This is nonsense from an elderly financial celebrety who has faded into the past.

Pam Dzama, Kingston, Washington

Like gulf war one, the free flow of ooil at market prices, was a partial goal of this war.

Big deal.

eric R. Johnson, Reno, NV

I agree with Greenspan and with that how can anyone believe anything our leaders say?

Donald, Atlanta,

I think it's become necessary to employ the reason of the month club for why we America Attacked Iraq.

I suppose we can just go with whatever reason is convenient at the time, don't you think.

Why can't we impeach Bush, is what I need to know.

Richard , Charlotte, USA

Clearly, Alan Greenspan should not be labeled a "Conspiracy Theorist." If you did not get it, I'm being sarcastic.

Adam , New York City, USA

And to think Harry Reid called him a "political hack". But seriously folks, isn't securing the oil in the middle east a good idea?

Middle Man, Sacramento, CA

Is it not amazing that once someone leaves office they suddenly have a conscience. The book will be number one, with liverals and all Bush haters. If Greenspan was a man he would have stated the truth years ago, not all of a sudden deloping a conscience. If it not weird how they all develop a concsience. If he is telling the truth than he should have had moral courage to disagreed then. He is a coward like so many politicians. He does not matter. He is small. Only greed at this point.

Rich Layman, Vancouver, WA

Well, of course, the takeover of Iraq was about oil. It was about who could have the final say about Persian Gulf oil, and whoever that was would be the hyperpower. The neocons had a plan for the US to exercise world hegemony, and taking over Iraq was key to that plan. Just ask Vice President Cheney about what was discussed in his energy task force meetings, but, I'm sorry to tell you he won't be sharing that information with you.

nick Pearson, weston, mA

Dear Alan:
Retirement suits you. If you must entertain, stick to inciteful economic gibberish instead of inciting foreign policy assertions.
Of course a hostile Iraq was a threat to oil supplies. You're just thinking small, though. Think high stakes geo-political conflict that spans North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia. Jihad, Oil, Nukes, Missiles, currency fraud, drugs, WMD, Rogue States all play a part as villans. Just cause Oil is one of many threats doesn't make it causal.
From someone, however high placed in the Bank, unlikely to have attended relevant meetings, I'm certainly interested in any proof to support the impending "Ah ha, see Bush lied" chorus. I thought we were supposed to believe that Iraq wasn't any threat? It was!?
What part did Greenspan himself play in the US precarious economic position? Isn't this his area of expertise? Plenty of blame about policy, but the very real security threats remain.
War for Oii is a simpleton's grasp, below AG.

Sashland, Ashland, OR/USA

One by one, the rats are jumping ship.

Jim, PHOENIX , USA

Then where the heck IS it?

JJ Whorley, Dallas, TX

was , or is , it going to be worth it? only time will tell.

paul, nash, u s a

And without a constant supply of oil to the West the West would be crippled economically. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being proactive in this respect. This Greenspan revelation is just pure hype. Its the best thing Bush did in office. And its not done yet folks...

Jeff Dearborn, Severna Park, Maryland

Nothing ignoble about securing oil supplies - for the entire planet as well as the US and UK - more than enough reason to go to war. Anything else?

Andrew Logar, Santa Rosa, California

Well I never. Who'd have thought that?

Ian Olive, Nanteuil-en-Vallee, France

Does this mean we can finally impeach the worst President in American history??

Paul Benedek, Basalt, Colorado

But Rumsfeld said it's nonsense so that's all there is to it. Even though Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserve. That nutty Greenspan!

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

In a Feb. 26 address, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called suggestions that the US is really after Iraq's oil "utter nonsense."

"We don't take our forces and go around the world and try to take other people's real estate or other people's resources, their oil. That's just not what the United States does," he said. "We never have, and we never will. That's not how democracies behave."

Nonsense aside, the sands of Iraq hold oil... lots of it. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues."

Luke, Miami, Florida

The oil was merely a benefit.

Goblin Juice, San Francisco, United States of Ass Kickin'

It is disingenuous to say "it was about oil" and then say we were concerned about the security of the Middle East oil supplies. The naysayers and conspiracy theorists want to believe that we re-invaded Iraq to seize their oil, when nothing of the sort has taken place. We, as a nation that imports more than 50% of our oil, must be concerned with the security of all foreign oil. To be unconcerned would be suicidal. But to imply that there was an ulterior motive to seize or profit from the Iraq conflict is to distort the facts and confuse the ignorant.

Mak, Kennesaw, GA

I wonder if the President did nothing after 9/11 just as Clinton did after the Cole attack. Would America be attacked again? When Billery gets into office she will stand down intelligence and armed force in order to say' " We are cutting the budget by doing so." Will America be safer? How many of you have contributed to this volunteer army in this effort to curve terrorism. How many have done nothing but to complain and make the job harder? Majority of you people suck in your bitching. If we had say Al Gore no more guns, No more gasoline. More taxes. I wish we did have him in there that would set the record straight on who is the real enemy of American ideas. Go with your stupid ramblings about how everything is bad and sit on your well fed ass. Just remember when the democraps get in there you will still be bitching and the situation will be worse.
"This will be the generation that brings American ideals and values down. This well fed generation will make a bad situation worse."

rdillon7872, Jonesboro, Arkansas

if this is true do you think Bush should goto the same court as Saddam Hussein

DONALD, LAKE HAVASU CITY, AZ

Borrowing trillions of deficit dollars in the names of our children and printing enought $100 dollar bills to devalue our currency by 40% is a bad thing?

But, but we still have the best non-representative government special interests money can buy...right?

John, Orlando, Florida

It is a shame no one had the guts, or integrity to say the truth when they had the opportunity to slow down or stop the madness that is going on now- I mean Greenspan and Powell in particular.
Walter Croncrite wasn't afraid of anthrax letters when he and others posted newspaper stories against Bush policies.

jesse, louisville, ky. usa

To Anne from London - So you would have supported German and Japanese policy in the 1930s? I mean, Germany needed leibensraum and Japan needed natural resources. So no problem the right? And you wouldn't have a problem if more North Sea oil were found and Russia decided to invade the UK to protect her "ecomonic welfare"?

Jonathan, Auckland,

It wasn't ALL about oil. I think it's fair to say that Saddam was a threat to Israel, NOT to the US. Iraq never attacked the US-they did attack Israel.

JP, Westlake Village, Ca, USA

Ms London is correct, that we are in a fight with al Queda. She should also realize that the invasion of Iraq, though it was to some measure enabled by that fight, was not motivated in any way by that fight, and has been of enormous benefit to al Queda. The invasion of Iraq has facilitated the expansion of al Queda to Iraq, and promoted recruitment for al Queda.

Had Sir Winston Churchill responded to the invasion of Poland by attacking Spain, then George W Bush could truly be said to be emulating him.

Saudi Arabia has enjoyed an enormous increase in income as a result of the record high petroleum prices that resulted from reductions in Iraqi exports.

Fred Fighter, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA

I still think that the war was about Little Bush being upset that Saddam really won the war. Big Bush wanted a publicity coup by having a 100 hour war but most of Iraq arms and terror network remained intact, killing Kurds and other for pleasure and power. He went to war to avenge the lose of face Big Bush had. This is some much more like Little Bush and his fragile ego being appeased than anything else. Going to war for oil, unless we permantly occupy Iraq plus most of the Middle East is ridiculous. It is far cheaper, more beneficial, and much safer to simply open up drilling in potential oil producing areas within the US borders and oceans if we want more oil. And I still think the reason we don't push for this, is that as the Arabs run out of oil we will start to open these up and we will control the market.

Richard, Houston, tx

Actually, 1) Our economic power wouldn't collapse if we did lessened our dependence on foreign supplies with a plan. 2) Going into other contries and invading for resources is called imperialism, and if America can do it why not all the other countries who need cheaper oil? Americans pay some of the cheapest oil ironically.

Walter Voss, Clifton, NJ

Greenspan is absolutely right. If there had not been oil beneath the Iraqi sands we would not be in Iraq fighting an illigal war. However who ever said Bush stayed within the rule of law.

Alice , Samson, USA

Oil is our king. Have you prayed to him today? The moslems have their Allah and their Mohammed. But our god is oil. And for him we must be make our sacrifices! To the altar with your sons and daughters! The God requires tribute! Our holy priest, G.W. Bush is an oil man! He will save the day and appease our Oil God! Look how he becomes rich and powerful through Oil! Hooray for Oil!

Andrew Mangold, London, UK

Finally someone is telling the truth OUT LOUD, and validating all of those civilian logicians who knew the action in Iraq was/is a putup.
Too bad the aniquities of modern civiilization had to be destroyed in the process.. I guess that's what America gets for allowing a Cgrade legacy student to run the country.
Perhaps now The People will do the right thing. I leave that to your imaginations.

Chipper, rural , Ontario

Maybe these crazy statements will get him and his liberal wife into Washington DC cocktail parties

Patrick R., fairfax, USA

Iraq war for Oil...

Well except for the history books,, what does it matter anymore...
There is no one who can bring Saddam back to life,, and reinstall him as ruler of Iraq... So the most important thing is.. where do we go from here.??

. IMHO,, Since Iraq has become the battle ground for Al-Qaeda.. as proven by how Bil Laden mentions it in his videos.. We had better make sure we leave Iraq a better and freer place .. than when we attacked Saddam.. or the whole world will suffer..

IMHO.. it the USA pulls out to soon,, the resulting full blown civil war will kill millions of Iraq civilians.. ,,, and in the end.. either Iran or Al-Qaeda will control Iraq.. Both of which want to destroy the west..

Francis, Minneapolis, MN.USA

Yes, on oil and the USofA's attach on Afganistan was for Poppies, so that our herone additicts would not suffer.
Name me one head of State that did not say and believe that there were WMD and oil in Iraq or there were not poppies in Afganistan.
Greenspan was of course in on all the discussions about wagging war against Sadam H. for oil, while at the Federal Reserve making sure that the WAR would be well and completley financed by the "Vast Industrial Complex" and us other common Americans and Brits.
When I write my book, like Greenspan, I will blam Bush for all the troubles you and I are having in this world.
Don't waste your money on my book or HIS, nether mine nor his are true. Mary in Kansas.

manysmiles, miltonvale, KS

The word they use is destabilizing. Anything or anyone that destabilizes the middle east can be considered a threat because we depend on the free flow of oil.

When Saddam invaded the oil rich Kuwait, he was a threat to the free flow of oil and I feel we should have toppled him then.

Paul, Raleigh, NC

Wow; next Alan will be saying the sky is blue.

ralph, vista,

Is it really so shocking that we would go to war to secure the flow of oil, the one commodity our economic survival depends on? What if the fundamentalist muslims were in total control of it? Could we afford to allow them to have the power (and funds) that would entail? I don't get the the reation of people from this statement. It's about national security-of course if we had had the leadership thinking ahead to develop alternatives, we might not be in this situation.

linda skountzos, new hampton, ny usa

There is an old saying to guide us in the matter of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The stranger the circumstances the simpler the explanation. Why on earth risk so much for so little? Well, perhaps the objectives are not little. Oil. Natural Gas. Not just in Iraq.

Steve, Myrtle Point, Oregon

If this is the case , then why is oil $80 a barrel, and why am I paying $3+ per gallon for gas? If we have 150,000 troops over there, have them guard the pipelines, let the Iraqis deal with the rest of the the mess, and lets see 80 cent gasoline!! Hellllooooo?

Heather, rancho palos verdes, usa

I'm sure all the drudgereport readers will start calling this lifetime GOP member and genius a traitor or an idiot now... Rational people should just skip over most of the comments here and spare your brain cells.

Dan, Houston, TX

A bit of nonsense I would say....since if the US wanted Oil, it would have been and still is, much cheaper to simply BUY IT. Why spend a Trillion dollars and not have garnered one extra barrel nor made it safer...

Even the old line commie Chinese are now buying and selling things at a profit of loss. They are starting to understand the capitalistic system.

One would only wish such on the Europeans. Seems only the Poles and Estonians are now aware of the practice. But maybe Sarkozy will turn them around.

Bill, Wichita, Kansas, USA

I've been saying the war was about oil since it started in 2003 . If Bush really were going to do something about the axis of evil ( remember them ) , he would have gone against North Korea , the one with the nuclear weapons for real . Nuf said .

D Sauseda, Chicago, Illinois

It was a perfect storm, Iraq was rearming and a potential threat to the oil supply. The world did believe Saddam had WMD's. He had successfully convinced too many the UN sanctions should be lifted. He continued to defy the no fly zone. His brutality toward his own people was well known.

Of course it was about oil, but not ONLY oil. History will thank those who took him out, despite the high cost.

Whit, San Carlos, CA, USA

Allan Greenspan used to to be a close follower of Ayn Rand's philosophies, but once he got a little power his "Laissez~faire" went out with the bath water.

Michael , Spokane Valley, WA

So a war to protect our way of life isn't a just one? Why must we go to war only AFTER we have been drastically hurt or damaged?
Going to war to prevent a world wide economic depression is not just? It is downright ignorant to think that the war fought for oil was done so to protect corporate profits. It was fought to make sure our economy wasn't destroyed.

Richard Head, Leesburg, Va

Ignorance is truly bliss......

Educate yourself before commenting please. Show your intelligence, not your laziness by commenting on something you truly don't know the history of.......

Greenspan lost A LOT of credibility by making this statement in his supposed memoirs. KNOW your history and the facts.

Stefanie, Fresno, CA USA

Ask Greenspan one question. Does the economy (read security) of the United States depend on a secure, reliable oil supply? If not, I must have missed something very important during the last 60 years or so. If the answer is yes, then no other questions are relevant.

Fay Earley, Boone, NC

If the war is about oil, how come we're paying twice as much for a gallon of gas than when the war started?

Mac Davis, Tallahassee, Fl

if it's true, and we know it is....then time to think what that make us...thre are names for such nations, historic and relevant.
And such end up, the leaders thereof, in interntional court...
Face it. The US is an aggressor. Grabber. They're
acting like Israel.

pharis, Seattle, US

OK, so the old man has an OPINION. So do I. Big deal, it PROVES nothing.

It will be amusing, though, to watch the anti-war liberals slobber all over Greenspan now, after years of demonizing him for his economic policies. LOL

Rick, Doral, FL, USA

I can't wait to read the book. Having made these claims, Greenspan is going to back them up by providing specific quotes, dates, times, etc., of the primary decision makers saying and perhaps even writing "we're only going in for the oil!" Oherwise it's just another libertarian trying to tear down the conservative effort to end the wellspring of terrorism and bring to the Middle East the same liberty, opportunities, rule of law and stability enjoyed by those of us in the west.

Jesse Segovia, Lexington, MA, USA

Surprise, surprise....
Not!
So what else is new?

tricky business, amsterdam,

Sure it’s for oil that’s why the US is still in Kuwait.

LJ, New Bern, NC

Well done to Mr Greenspan for stating the obvious, it's good to see someone who it will be very difficult for Bush and co to ignore and discredit (though I don't doubt they'll do their best) speaking up.

Anne in London, "Let's say that is true. So what?" Ummm, so the leaders of the US and UK lied shamelessly from the very start about their reasons for going to war and have continued to do so ever since?

Stephen Cadick, there was no "radical Islamic fascism" in Iraq prior to the invasion and the nation, which was under a brutal SECULAR regime, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11 - AQ have only arrived there since the invasion (and is hated by the vast majority of Iraqis - 80% or so of AQ fighters there being non-Iraqi). In your own words, you have the right to [attempt to] persuade, but you are not persuasive.

Ruth, Salwa, Kuwait

81-year-old man says what everyone else already knows and this is suppose to shock us? Where was Greenspan during the build-up to the war?

Greenspan wants to sell books and make even more money should be the title of this news story.

Tim, Albany, USA/NY

Saddam invaded Kuwait. We didn't make him do that. Saddam agreed to get rid of his WMDs as part of the surrender agreement after the first gulf war. He played games and never allowed the UN to be sure he destroyed them. He did not abide by the surrender agreement. The oil for food program wasn't working and we would have eventually been forced to lift the UN sanctions. France and Germany were pushing for this because they stood to profit from it. The EU wants a weak and defeated United States. The UN has been hijacked by leftists and dictators. Is the middle east about Oil? Of course it is. But this wasn't the sole reason for getting rid of Saddam.

David, Texas, U.S.A.

I mean this isn't something new, humanity has been fighting over economic interests since the dawn of organized states. We have to realize that our world is largely held together by nothing more than fiscal ties and the dictator did pose a threat to the worlds number one necessity. Some may argue that such actions are immoral but removing a tyrant and releasing economic tensions could bring positive outcomes.

Austen, Chicago, illinois

Oil is a strategic resource. That makes it worth fighting over. That is why we must press forward with alternative fuel sources so that oil losses its status.

Peter, Oakton, VA

I think that Greenspan is simply providing yet another a distraction for the US Government by saying this?
He had to say something so that his book could be published at this time, and with the Middle-East fiasco having to still roll-on.
Alternatively if the war was about WMD, then why cannot we be told even now precisely what type of WMD Saddam was supposed to have and their origins.
The conviction of Lewis 'Scooter' Libby in the USA this year after a federal Trial said it all.
It showed that the story of Saddam having been buying Yellowcake Uranium from Niger was fabricated in 2002 on the instruction of Dick Cheney (Libby's boss) as an excuse for the US and the UK to invade Iraq in 2003.
Cheney clearly had a hidden agenda.
Incidentally Cheney had also been US Defense Secretary in Gulf War-1.

Michael, Bristol, UK

Well, obviously. Maybe our media can stop pretending otherwise?

Peter, Ontario,

Holy Smokes!
I mean, we all knew it, but still!

HOLY SMOKES!!!

Bignumone, Swartz Creek,

Well, it looks like Alan found a great way to sell a few million copies of his new book.

Tom, New York, NY

Of course, this begs the question: "Why not have said that they were entering war to thwart an impending attack on the energy jugular of West?" That would have been an even better casus belli than WMD.

Eugene, Heidelberg, germany

Well I guess we really suck. We have a war to get oil. We are not able to get any oil because we can't win the war. Now oil is $80 plus a barrel.

Guess we had best pick up our marbles and go home.

And Greenspan sucks because he knew about, but failed to realize what problems the realestate crooks were doing the economy.

If Greespan can't figure out what questionable lending practices would due to the economy, how can that bum know what our reasons for being in Iraq are, eh?

RonB, canyon lake, TX

This is a stunning insight on Mr Greenspan's part. I for one am shocked. A war over oil? Control over Baba Ganoush I might have belived, but oil?

Doug O, Madison, Wi

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

Sad and a little scary that saying what's true can be difficult in the USA, but it's true. I'm old enough to remember Vietnam and now we have Iraq. There's something definitely going wrong around here.

Bruce L., Denver,

The war was not only about oil it was also about the supremacy of the US dollar. Saddam was accepting only Euros as payment for his oil, and this was a direct threat to the financial stability of the US dollar

Baruch Battelstein, Jerusalem,

Didn't we really already know that? Thank you Mr. Greenspan for speaking the truth!

Monica Kurth, Davenport, IA

Well, it is nice to have someone finally admit it. This is not to say that oil is a bad reason for going to war. In fact, it may be a better reason than religion or ideaology. If we need oil, then shouldn't our government try to obtain it? If it is also true that oil plays a large role in valuing the dollar, which affects every American, then should we not also want our government to partake in regulating that? Do we want America to be at the bottom of the heap or the top?

Marry, Houston, TX

This is hardly a shock or surprise. Anything the US (and UK) does in the Middle East is at least SOMEWHAT about oil. We aren't "spreading democracy" altruistically, just for the people there.

Name Withheld, Washington, DC

Even an illiterate with no school education knows that the war is for oil. An educated world renowned Alan Greenspan is not required to tell this...

James, Bombay, India

I'm glad someone associated wiht our government has finally stated the obvious. We've all known this for a long time.

Jerry Frank, Miami, Florida

Greenspan will say ANYTHING to grab a headline.

Even the Truth.

Joseph Neri, West Covina, California

It's about time. I cannot believe how irresponsible and amoral our current leadership are. We need a Manhattan project for energy right now.

Joe , Seattle, Washington

Yeah bush and the moons made of green cheese. Of course the iraq war was about oil. We knew it then and we still know it now.

mike, glasgow, scotland

The American people have never been lied to. Everything is 100 percent true. WMD's, 911, threat of 'a mushroom cloud', easter bunny, santa claus. W wouldn't lie to me, Condi wouln't lie to me. Tell the tooth fairie I wanta a fiver under my pillow tonite.

John, Cleveland/Ohio, USA

who would have guessed it!!!

ryan Stern, pacifica, CA

Yes, and anyone who does not rely on the benefits of petroleum products may cast the first stone.

Popular or not, when oil is threatened each of us who use electricity, buy products that come in plastic containers, need transport, eat food... the list can go on for quite a way... we are threatened and our economy is threatened.

Our economy, our health, our environment, our national interests, we should point the finger to our dependence on oil before we lambaste the pushers and dealers who will go to war to feed our habits.

Adrian, Houston,

" I am shocked, shocked, to see that there is gambling going on in this place..." Give me a break...

Allan, amarillo, tx

Tell me something I don't know

Abzats, Hawaii, HI

What a shock, the whole world knows this, this country was taken to war on faked , cooked up , fixed intelligence as reported in the Downing Street Meno.. This administration cooked up america's Energy Policy behind closed door, in secret, they'v dis-honored this country and those that serve with such bravery, dignity,integrity and honor. My father served for ouver 20 years as a 1st Sargent, he died of a heart attack when he turned fourty 4 years after he returned, he won serveral Bronze Stars and a Silver Star, he told me the only true Medal was that all of his men on his tank that were under him came home alive and with all their parts. This President has shamed this country as no other before him!

Adena Wheeles, Anchorage, Alaska

Thank you Mr. Greenspan for acknowledging the truth that the majority of American citizens have known for years: "the prime motive for the war in Iraq was [and still is] oil." Oil is also the primary motive underlying the current propaganda campaign aimed at expanding the war into Iran. Hopefully, other respected Republican elder statesmen and women will follow your example by telling the truth about the Iraq War and also join you in criticizing Bush's economic policies that are hurting everyone but war profiteers and those who are already very wealthy.

Mike Meador, Dillingham, U.S.A./Alaska

I haven't (obviously) read Greenspans' memoirs. However - the fact of the matter is, he's a beacon of libertarian thought and had been a close friend of Ayn Rand. Knowing those two things should actually be enough to put some of his Iraq comments into context. The sentence itself was, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient..." Saddened that it's politically inconvenient - NOT saddened that the motive was for oil. As a libertarian and one who studies history and philosophy, I see nothing wrong with oil being a central issue for war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it's 30 years too late. Go do a youtube search for Ayn Rand's comments on the 70s energy crisis... my guess is Greenspan would agree with her assessments. Specifically that we should have never allowed our technology and corporate efforts developing oil in that region to be nationalized. It's politically "incorrect" but *defending* our interests from dictators is a moral justification for war.

Sean, Portland, OR

Of course it was partially about oil...every person in America knows that, so thanks, Alan, for telling us what we already knew. The key here is WHY. The far-left would have you believe it's because we want to dominate the world, the far-right would tell you that it's because we want to save these poor souls from tyranny. The reality is that ALL CIVILIZED NATIONS (except Brazil: ethanol) rely primarily on oil for energy, and if access to that resource was controlled by the wrong people our entire livelihoods would be compromised - that's a very simple equation. I'm a Republican and one of few surviving supporters of President Bush, despite the errors we all agree he's made along the way. But people, when he says he wants to bring security to the region, that includes its resources...OIL. The same people who tell you this war was ONLY about oil are the same people who believe it's OK to kill innocent babies via abortion, yet reject the death penalty for heinous murderers.

Code Red, Livingston, MT

Finally, someone who is respected across the political divide, and to whom people listen, has spoken the truth. It only adds to the stupidity of the invasion of Iraq and the continuing quagmire. Both Bush & Cheney should be prosecuted for the thousands of deaths their actions have caused.

Name Withheld, Bangkok, Thailand

What a surprise. The only people who don't know this are in complete denial and barely worth acknowledging anymore.

Adam, Mesa, AZ

If the war is about oil as several misinformed individuals claim, then why aren't the UK and the US taking it? Why is the bulk of the oil exported from Iraq going to Communist China? There are some major holes in this theory, and I've never heard anyone who makes this claim come close to making the theory sound logical...

Name Withheld, Bakersfield, CA

He's only stating part of the obvious. Everyone now knows the invasion was nothing to do with the original 2 objectives (remove Saddam and WMDs) since both were 'met' years ago, yet the forces are still in occupation. Now some 1m souls have been extinguished and somebody should be made to pay, fully.

Muhammad Rafiq, Croydon, UK

I don't get it...read the Fed's statements from 8/05-9/06...the Fed statement is signed by Greenspan. He has lost a lot of credibility.

jacob, Seattle,

Perhaps another reason it was about the oil was Saddams insistance in dealing in Euros for oil and not Dollars. Just imagine what would happen to the greenback should all those Petrodollars start coming home.

Finnz, Dublin, Ireland

Not a surprise. Only the White House will be "shaken" by the news. FInally, someone has told the truth. Now, what do we do?

Victoria, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Returning home from work on the day that Bush launched his invasion of Iraq, I asked my husband whether the action was retribution for his father or a grab for the oil. My husband's response was brief yet wisely insightful, he said "Both".
The ensuing four and a half years has only deepened the my angst over this sham act. Finally, someone has spoken the truth. Now, will the politicians and public wise-up and embark on a dialog for taking a proper course of action by stopping the military action and invoking diplomacy, while moving the US away from oil dependency?

Ann Dalkey, Redondo Beach, CA

Unfortunately, it took years for anyone to have the nerve to say the truth. Now watch Bushco discredit Greenspan.

Grace Morris, Rio Linda, CA

Ya know, if they had said this for the get go, it might, and I mean "might", have made sense.

That said, Greenspan seems to have missed alot. Housing market, now the "true" reason behind the war. If Mr. Greenspan truly believed this, did he not owe it to the American public to resign and say this. When are politicians going to put the needs of the people before their party. Before their careers.

Bob Smith, Northern California, USA

Let's say that is true. So what? The US and Britan are dependent on oil. Our economic way of life are what they are because of it. If it was suddenly cut off our way of life, our economic power would collapse. I have no problem with protecting our interests even if that means we need to protect our access to oil.

But it's clear that we are in a fight against al Queda. And they have made it clear that only converting to Islam, as nations will stop the fighting.

Anne, London, U.K.

"It's sad when someone whisks away the veil and reveals the truth you kept 'hidden' for so long - and hoped nobody else would notice". Not actually a quote attributed to GWB but might as well be...

John Moss, Moyie Springs, ID

Greenspan is absolutely spot on...as if anyone needs to be told this at this point in time. But, then again, there really are some hold outs that still believe Saddam was an architect of 9/11 and that the WMD's lie buried under the sands of the desert!

Susan G., Marshfield, MA., USA

I have been telling my friends this for years. In their hearts, I think everyone really knows this, if they have any sense at all.

Mary C. Grimaldo, Garland, Texas

Right! And Greenspan is a liberal as is his wife. He is a republican in democract garb. A person who makes such a foolish, biased statement never was appropriate to be in charge of our finance.

Nan Kraft, Orl, FL

Isn't it interesting that so many well-respected public figures, once they're retired and presumably free to speak their minds, tend to confirm our worst fears about the conduct of the Bush administration?

C. Darryl Mattison, Utica, US

Thank God some one has the courage to be politically "incorrect" and tell the truth! Too bad it wasn't when he was in office, it might have made a difference.

JANICE, Cambridge, Idaho

they just keep piling it on ! President Bush is in a similar situation as Sir Winston Churchill. you all want to look at the world through roese colored lenses. Wake up world! we are at war! i woild rather have A Churchillian over a Chamberlein. how about you?

joe bongiovanni, madison, al, usa

Greenspan is entitled to his opinon, but in matters of war he knows nothing. If this was about oil, how come Iraq is exporting a whole lot less than before? Securing the energy lines from insane dictators is a good idea but the President did not go after him because of oil. That is simply not the point. The point is that no further attacks on American interests have taken place since the invasion. Would it be me I would have also cleared Iran and Syria which are now neatly divided on purpose to disarm them from radicalism.

Al G, you have the right to persuade but you are not persuasive.

This is the fight of the millenium against radical islamic fascism and freedom for those who are not free and against those that would clearly kill every Westerner they could lay their hands on.

US and British Marines have made damn sure that they will never have a chance.

Sometimes we westerners don't get the picture until it was too late. The President knew waiting was a waste of time.

Stephen Cadick, Myrtle Beach, USA South Carolina

Of course it was about Oil...What many people don't talk about however was that the prime motivation wasn't necessarily about comandeering Iraq's oil supply itself, but maintaining a consistent(ly high) market value, which Saddam constantly sought to undermine. I would be interested to know if Mr. Greenspan touches on any of this in his memoir. No Blood for OPEC.

J. Cole, Oakland, California

And a new Master Of The Bleeding Obvious is born. Well done AG.

Mark, Ely,

Greenspan knows full well that the war with Iraq was for the benefit of ISRAEL. The atttack on Iraq was not for oil -- the United States receives only 16% of its oil from the Middle East. Markets, such as Venezuela, Mexico and Canada, are willing to sell additional oil to the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. can drill in the Artic and the Gulf should Arab countries reduce our oil supply. The U.S. tries to reduce oil sales that supply monies and advantages to Arab countries. The U. S. has an agreement with Israel which commits us to provide Israel with oil The war with Iraq is to demonstrate to Israel's enemies that the U.S. will always intervene to defend Israel's undeclaared borders. Israel is perhaps the only country in the world that will not declare its borders. The Iraq war is not about oil. The Iraq is not about weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq war is about Israel and its expanding it borders at the expense of the Arab countries.

june cassidy, osprey, us/florida

...and amongst papers released from Cheney's energy task force, which were looked at pre-war, there were maps of Iraq's oil fields!

A. Lewis, Los Angeles, California, USA

Wow; the cat's otta the bag!! Probably the least kept secret. Iran wants control of the world's oil & it must go through Iraq to get to Saudi Arabia & Kuwait. The world (Great Britain & the U.S.) are the only big powers to stop any advance. I am not impressed by Greenspan's 'wisdom.'

Gary Diedrick, Moline, IL

I would respect Mr. Greenspan's opinions more if he had pressured the Bush administration to pay for conducting their "illegal" war. On his watch, the national debt has risen catastrophically and has now exceeded the 9 trillion limit approved by congress. If he had boldly dealt with the financial end of the war matter, like insisting on this generation paying taxes to execute their war, there would have been less of it. Greenspans's and Bush's legacies will be to have handed each child and grandchild of this generation a debt load of about $10,000 each. And he is still applauded for his fiscal intergrity?

JDonald, Penticton, Canada

Yes. That's what my friends tried to "explain" to me in 2003. I refused to believe. Now? I think I do.

Katherine Andron, North Bend, Wa

No surprise. You have to be brain dead to believe otherwise.

Noubar Kessimian, Cranston,

Yes - and I too am 80 years old, and will shout to the rooftops that Middle East oil was the major reason for the Iraq II war. I continue to shout so.

Absolutely shocking absence of national morality, to say nothing about national integrity, and the total absence of
integrity on the part of the war borne leadership of this nation.

The whole thing has been transparent from the beginning, as is evident from the stammering and twisting and turning going on now by leadership.

rev. frank halse, jr. (ret), mexico, new york, usa

Why did he wait so long to tell the truth. Anybody with
half a brain knew what oilmen Bush & Cheney did. He was
in a position to say something in 2003 before all the
bloodshed. He could not have been fired and he could
have saved lives.

Ivan Saiff, Boynton Beach, Flolrida,USA