Portland, Ore.

It's revealing of the media effort to marginalize the "blood for oil" explanation for the occupation of Iraq that the NY Times refused to publish Greenspan's money graf. Once Greenspan tired to backtrack, however, they gave it full coverage

Here's the story of my recent exchange with Times reporter Edmund Andrews, who wrote at least two articles about Greenspan's book without a mention of his now-celebrated statement on oil as the reason for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Andrews had avoided the issue in his article by writing: "Greenspan also spelled out his own views about the war in Iraq: he supported the invasion, he says, not because Saddam Hussein might have had weapons of mass destruction, but because Saddam had shown a clear desire to capture the Middle East's oil fields."

I complained to Andrews that "it's now been several days since most news sources reported that Mr. Greenspan wrote 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.' " Indeed, your website posts an AP story headlined 'Gates Rejects Greenspan Claim War Is About Oil.' But you have yet to explain why you still carefully avoid mentioning his conclusion even when, as below, you write about his views on Iraqi oil."

Andrews's co-author David Sanger,in response to my similar complaint, wrote me that Mr. Greenspan's opinion is "certainly not what I understood him to be writing." Perhaps the two of you are the only deniers?

Andrews replied:"Some of the initial TV reports on this were wrong. Greenspan didn't mean that the administration went to war because of oil. What he told us was that it should have been about oil."

I replied: "My point was that you ignored what he wrote and then jumped on his 'retraction.' Perhaps Mr. Sanger and you are the only deniers."

Michael Munk
09/27/2007 @ 9:29pm

Hercules , Calif.

Great journalism. A must read. Remember before the Iraq War ? Oil was $28 a barrel! Bill Clinton had softened the Iraqis up with years of sanctions killing 500,000 children (UN Figures) .

Bush's mandate was to go in, privatize and produce. His failure was a severe blow to our Empire. It not only made the price of oil shoot up, creating wads of money to fund the terrorists and the emerging Iran, but created a firestorm of dialog about energy independence and its relationship with global warming.

So Bush has lost the oil rights, and in the bargain has lost the momentum to secure military bases in the most important part of the world today. Bush has been a nightmare for everyone, even his closest allies !

Michael McKinlay
09/27/2007 @ 5:41pm