On 9/24/2010 11:23 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>>
>>> insiders like Alan Greenspan subsequently cited it as the reason for the invasion.
>>
>> Ah. Alan Greenspan. Thanks.
>>
>> SA
> You like to snipe. You'll quote Greenspan and other high-level sources when it suits your purposes, dismiss them when it doesn't, and imply that I endorsed their thesis that the war was fought primarily for oil. Why not come out directly and say what's on your mind: that the Bush administration and its advisors would never have considered Iraq's oil resources and strategic location astride the energy-rich region as a factor in weighing the decision to invade and occupy the country.
Sorry to be snipey. But no, I think it's not advisable to cite Alan Greenspan judgment as evidence of the White House's motives for some foreign-policy action. If Greenspan said Clinton attacked Serbia in 1999 out of a sense of busybody do-gooderism, I would assume that was just his opinion, too.
Did Bush "consider Iraq's oil resources...as a factor in weighing the decision to invade"? I would assume they considered that - along with other factors, such as: Iraq is an Arab country; Iraq is a Muslim country; the weather in Iraq gets very got in the summer; Iraq is made up of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds; the capital of Iraq is Baghdad; etc. That doesn't mean any of these was a "reason" for the invasion per se.
SA