Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has some harsh words for the Republican party in his new autobiography, words that I hope the Republicans listen to. Although I haven't read the book yet, apparently the former Ayn Rand disciple states quite clearly that the Republicans deserved to lose the majority in Congress in 2006 because it had abandoned its fiscal conservative roots. No argument here -- that's my position as well. But another tale from the book has garnered attention over the past few days -- Greenspan's claim that the Iraq war was, in fact, all over oil.

The media reports of Greenspan's statements make it sound as if behind closed doors, oil was the reason for the Iraq War, instead of one of many. In fact, as the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq states, there were many reasons for the Iraq War, not just WMDs. Primary among them was that "Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." Take away Middle East oil and the world's economy grinds to a halt. Like it or not, unless nuclear powered cars are just a few years away, maintaining safe and affordable oil supplies from the Middle East is in our country's national security interest -- and will be, for decades to come.

Today there's an article in the Washington Post, Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security, which seeks to clarifies the claims about oil that Greenspan made in his book. He explains his statement by saying that oil, in fact, wasn't the reason behind the war. Ex-Chairman Greenspan then goes on to say that if it was a reason for the war, it was because it was he who lobbied the administration on it:

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

Pretty interesting stuff. I wonder how Andrea Mitchell feels about this?