Now Greenspan says it too!

For years, since America invaded Iraq, those of us - and there are many - who claim that the United States was motivated, not by some lofty idea of democracy or a desire to remove a terror threat, but by a desire to get their hands on Iraq's copious supplies of oil have been written off as cranks and 'commies' by both U.S. and British politicians and media pundits.

Now we have support from the unexpected quarter of Alan Greenspan, the former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, whose memoirs are released tomorrow. There are, contained within its pages, many criticisms of George W. Bush's economic policies but the real bomb-shell is the statement “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Mr. Greenspan goes on to say that it was believed Saddam Hussein posed a threat to western oil supplies and thus had to be removed at all costs.



This has, apparently, provoked some consternation in Washington, where it has always been denied that oil supplies had any part to play in the decision to invade Iraq.

It has long been my contention that the right wing cabal which ran the Republican administration at that time saw a wonderful opportunity, after 911, to not merely go after the terrorists in Afghanistan but to secure oil supplies for the United States by getting rid of a troublesome despot with absolutely no connection to 911, under the guise of necessary defensive action. Whether this was with Blair's connivance or not it was certainly guaranteed to get the British on board. Any other story would have left America on its own as far as Iraq is concerned.

I may still be in a derided faction who will be accused of anti-Americanism for holding such cynical opinions. But its reassuring that I , and many others who feel as I do, now have such a respected American companion for company!