I guess I can wait until tomorrow when I speak with Alan Greenspan myself.
But among many interesting tid-bits he raised in his book was this popular canard that we got into Iraq because of the oil, removing Saddam was good, but protecting a vital oil source was better.
I guess because so many people believe this, I wanted to take this moment to have people focus on this: The last Iraq war.
If we were so interested in confiscating Iraq's substantial oil reserves, why didn't we just plow through there, and deputize the place then?
We could have. We didn't.
And why has the vast and overwhelming expense in Iraq now grown to stabilizing areas far from oil centers, not near them?
I guess if you keep reporting a falsity often enough, it becomes a truth.
But this one risks gaining greater currency because of who's saying it: Alan Greenspan.
To be fair, he's not saying the president went to war because of oil, but in the bigger picture, it didn't hurt that we removed Saddam to protect oil.
Trust me, if we wanted just oil, we'd position all our troops around just oil facilities.
We didn't. We haven't. And we aren't.
It's the same reason we don't accept oil from Iran. We could. And God knows energy prices for us would be lower if we did.
But we don't.
Look, there is much we do wrong in this country.
Falling into the grassy knoll theory that everything we do is about oil, misses the fact that sometimes a lot of what we do is about principle.
I don't expect MoveOn.org to say that. But I do expect Alan Greenspan to choose better wording when discussing that.
Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org