Not that this was news to me. Of course it was about the oil. It was always about the oil. This from The Sunday Times (UK):

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

Not only was the invasion about the oil, but the continued occupation of Iraq is about making money for Halliburton and KBR. Money from the U.S. taxpayer. Where are all of the fiscal conservatives when you need them?

A recent congressional analysis shows the Iraq war is now costing almost $2 billion a week. It might be different if we were actually getting something of value for our money. The middle-east is more unstable then before. There are more Islamic fundamentalist terrorists now then there was before Bush invaded Iraq. One of the goals in The War On Terror™ should be to make the number of terrorists go down, not go up.

I’m old enough to remember when being a Republican was all about fiscal responsibility. That seems like a long time ago.