I've been thinking about buying Greenspan's new book. Greenspan makes me laugh. I watched him give speeches that were so difficult to understand that the networks always put some form of "translation subtitles" on the screen whenever he was talking. On the other hand, I watched him talking to Congress off the cuff, and I couldn't help but think (1) the guy has a great sense of humor, and (2) He really can explain himself well when he wants to.

On the way to school today, I heard a claim that his new book says that the Iraq war "was for the oil." This is odd, because Greenspan has a reputation for thinking things out before opening his mouth (unlike, say, Barack Obama), and most conspiracy claims about the Iraq war are notoriously underbaked. If the war's "about the money" who's getting the money? If it's Cheney, through Halliburton, then somebody ought to tell Cheney. If it's about the oil, then who's getting the oil? The US military isn't in the business of running oil fields.

Luckily, Greenspan has thought a little bit about this:

"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," he writes. ...

Greenspan clarified his remarks in an interview with the Washington Post, telling the newspaper that although securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with a case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said. ... He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, "I have never heard them basically say, 'We've got to protect the oil supplies of the world,' but that would have been my motive."

Sounds a little different from what the "Surrender at any cost" group has been saying, doesn't it?