We might be lucky Greenspan is no longer Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Can we stop using this nonsensical slogan "War On Terror"? It's not war on Terror, it's a War Against Islam.

Until we can admit what we're actually fighting, we're never going to get anywhere.

Agreed, Ian.
The Islamo-maniacs can shout their hate and be ignored, but when we speak a small truth, we are reviled for it!

When was I kidnapped and taken to Bizzaro World? (At least I wasn't the only kidnap victim)

Putting aside politics, examine this with common sense.

Realistically speaking, even if Iraq miraculously gets its situation under control, how exactly are we to benefit oil-wise? This country is surrounded by hostile muslims (Syria, Iran, Arabia) who are at the ready to sabotage oil fields with glee and impunity. I can think of a few countries where getting our oil would require less effort and fewer enemy attacks (Sudan at least isn't completely surrounded by muslims). We can look at other motives (Bush finishing his daddy's unfinished work), a gathering place for terrorists to be slaughtered, hell, even a twisted sense of biblical prophecy (Iraq was Babylon). But oil? Bush may be an oil man and Cheney his righthand oil man, but if Bush thought we could gain the upperhand in terms of oil supply by striking Iraq then he's ten times dumber than I ever imagined. It can't and won't happen. Ever. Unless Iran & Syria suddenly fall off the face of the earth inexplicably. And if Bush was thinking "biblical prophecy" when he formulated an attack, then he's as misled as Iran's leaders who think by spoiling for a fight they can bring about apocalypse.

ummm, we just completed a major arms deal with Saudi Arbabia. Why do we continue to arm our so-called "enemies"? We've been arming Muslims for years. There is no war on Islam, or terror for that matter. There is a war for control of natural resources. Oh, and a war to secure the wealth and riches of a handful of rich republican shisters.

VH - please keep in mind that this is taken from a UK newspaper. Now, read this quote from today's Wall Street Journal article, found here:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118999003209929296.html

"Mr. Greenspan was himself a behind-the-scenes advocate of overthrowing former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. He says he felt "getting Saddam out of there was very important," not because of weapons of mass destruction, but because he was convinced the Iraqi dictator wanted to control the Strait of Hormuz, through which a sizable portion of the world's oil passes. That would enable him to threaten the U.S. and its allies. He said he conveyed that view to both Mr. Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, another friend from the Ford administration, but doubts that played a part in the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq."

Note that Greenspan SUPPORTED the invasion of Iraq, on grounds that many consider valid.

"Anon" People on both sides of the political equation hate this sort of wheeling and dealing with so-called "allies" for control of resources. Were it up to me, they'd get nothing. Even when the Dems get the white house this pay-off will continue and YES, dems will benefit...they own companies, stocks etc. too. BTW, it's spelled "shyster" from the German scheisser (literally: defecator) as in an unscrupulous businessman or politician. The Left definitely is filled to the hilt with shysters.

p.s. Thanks "Sam Houston" for injecting some perspective.

Speaking of “politically inconvenient”, I have a “politically inconvenient” question to ask Mr. Andrea Mitchell: what level of expertise does he have to where we should come to his conclusion?

If we’re talking about economics, then fine...Greenspan has the credibility to fall back on here. But unless he can give me a memo not obtained by CBS that shows Rummy saying “This war for oil ought to be a hoot”, I don’t see why his opinion on Iraq is any more informed than that of Ralph the security guard at my office.