Seems Greenspan did not say that the Iraq war was for oil. I have to say, it didn’t sound right to say a mature guy like Greenspan who’s shown years of responsibility in public office to suddenly turn around an join a conspiracy theory crowd. Turns out he didn’t, but he was critical of Bush, so what the hey!
Not holding my breath for retraction etc etc.
But some of what he did say is bang on the money:
Greenspan said that at the time of the invasion, he believed, like Bush, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction “because Saddam was acting so guiltily trying to protect something.” While he was “reasonably sure he did not have an atomic weapon,” he added, “my view was that if we do nothing, eventually he would gain control of a weapon.”
His main support for Hussein’s ouster, though, was economically motivated. “If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands,” Greenspan said, “our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first….
Something should go here, maybe later. 