On 2010-09-24, at 12:20 PM, SA wrote:
> 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.
But the point is that Greenspan didn't say that the US attacked Iraq for good reasons. He said he was "saddened...to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." To be sure, his was "just an opinion", but of a somewhat different order than yours and mine, coming from one of the most powerful and well-connected officials in Washington during the Bush administration. But you keep curiously insisting, without a shred of explanation, that oil was not even one among several underlying factors of the occupation, so I propose we just move on.