Blood for Oil? You bet!

Alan Greenspan speaks in his recent published memoir:

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

And in a subsequent interview with the Wall Street Journal, he describes discussions he had with Cheney and Rumsfeld:

My view of the second Gulf War was that getting Saddam out of there was very important, but had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it had to do with oil. My view of Saddam over the 20 years was that he was very critically moving towards control of the Strait of Hormuz and as a consequence of that, control of the oil market. His purpose would be very much similar to Chavez’s actions and I think it would be very dangerous for us. So getting him out, to me, seemed a very important priority.

At least one prominent Republican now publicly acknowledges what the rest of us knew. Of course, by holding his tongue for five years and only making his pronouncements now that he is retired and the war is deeply unpopular, Mr. Greenspan shows he knows a thing or two about political convenience. For years, Greenspan showed overt and tacit support for Bush's tax cuts and economic policies, even while the President ballooned the deficit and expanded entitlement programs--both of which Greenspan now, conveniently, complains about.

Meanwhile, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said acidly on ABC News that Mr. Greenspan's book was just, "Georgetown cocktail party analysis." I wonder how Mr. Greenspan, so used to having the White House parse every word of his as though it were a divine utterance, will feel about them dismissing 500 precious pages? Welcome to the other end of the Republican attack machine, Mr. Greenspan. (As ye sow, so shall ye reap.)