"He says that the point was that *IF* Saddam was allowed to remain in power, he would eventually have attempted to control the Strait of Hormuz, and thus have the power to cut OFF large amounts of the world's oil supply!"
   So Mr. Greenspan is saying we are now involved in a chaotic situation which will cost about 2 trillion dollars, many tens of thousands of lives and the respect of the rest of the world because Saddam would have "eventually" "attempted" to cut off the world's oil supply. Was this fiscal responsibilty?.
   Would someone like to speculate how soon Saddam Hussein, dealing with international sanctions, hostile neighbors and a population divided religiously, ethnically and tribally, would have been in position to threaten takeover of the Strait of Hormuz. Five years? Ten? Anytime soon? Would his neighbors in the region who also ship oil though the Strait have been sitting idly by all this time. Are we providing muscle for Iran as well as the Saudi Royal Family. (Iran has benefitted more than anyone from this fiasco.) How pre-emptive is too pre-emptive?
   By the way, Mr. Greenspan this rationale for war, the threat of cutting off our oil supply, is awkwardly close to sounding like the reason Japan felt it necessary to attack us in 1941.
   Sounds to me like another will o' wisp like WMDs and links to Al Qaeda. These never existed and the best intelligence of the "Liberal Media" knew better during the build-up to catastrophe in '02 and '03.
This administration had no good non-imperialistic reason for starting this war. And having done so, they have done a piss poor job of executing it. Their wrong-headed immorality is only matched by their incompetence.