I suggested that this was because Democrat-filled newsrooms are in a bit of a pickle: on the one hand, Alan Greenspan – the (Perceived) Bush-Lover and Elder Statesman of Finance – dissing Mr. Bush is too tempting a tale for them to resist reporting. On the other hand, Alan Greenspan’s opinions are not the kind to which they’d prefer drawing a lot of attention.

How little did I know.

Mr. Greenspan has since clarified his book’s comments to the world, and in a surprising twist, yes, Mr. Greenspan says, he (rightly) rips Mr. Bush to pieces concerning a lot of the president’s fiscal policies – but, his tome’s analysis of Desert Storm II as primarily oil-driven wasn’t one of the negative bits. Actually, Mr. Greenspan thinks insuring the world’s continued access to Iraqi oil is a dandy reason to have invaded.

Got that? Mr. Greenspan is not – repeat, not! – accusing President Bush of invading Iraq in order to secure access to Iraq’s oil. He is just saying that nobody in power is willing to admit that securing access to that oil is a great benefit of the invasion, much less that killing Hussein for such reason alone probably would’ve been perfectly justifiable.

I mean, why not, right? He wasn’t the elected leader of a people or anything; he was the man with his boot on an entire people’s neck. And the homicidal nutcase was in control of one of the world’s largest oil reserves. If anyone’s whack-worthy in our national interest, why not him?

Now I disagree with that viewpoint, but it’s certainly more interesting than what every news story about his book has entirely (and suspiciously) focused on: the news that one more creditable guy technically disagrees with President Bush.

What a bunch of dishonest people these journalists are. At least I can justify the glaring errors in my news stories; I’m just an amateur blogger.