Cenk Uygur: That brings us to the moral question at hand. Because if we’re concerned about our standard of living, we’re concerned about our economy, we’re concerned about natural resources, and Saddam says, “Well, look, I went into Kuwait because I wanted to control the natural resources,” and we say, “Well, we went into Iraq because we want to control the natural resources,” does that raise issues of moral equivalence? And is it right that thousands of civilians, maybe hundreds of thousands of civilians, died in Iraq because we were concerned about natural resources that effected our economy?

Alan Greenspan: Well this is a very fundamental, moral question. I agree with that. Indeed, I’m one who’s a firm believer in civil liberties and believes in democracy and all of the institutions of the rule of law. And this is a problem that societies always have had over the years. I didn’t like the fact, for example, that right after 9/11, there was an extraordinary swing in this country willing to give up issues of civil liberties for national security. And when you extend that beyond the immediate present, that’s where the motives of lots of people come to try to secure themselves. Now, I’m not saying that’s a reason that anyone has the right to go into other governments of other countries. You know, if someone wants to use the resources as they see fit, we have to deal with it as we do. But I was merely raising the issue that why there’s such a fundamental issue around the Iraq war is that there is oil under the sands. And I’m just saying, without getting into the other issues you raised, which I frankly don’t exactly disagree with you on. If oil did not happen to exist in Iraq, the issues of Iraq and the Iraq war would have come about wholly differently. And I don’t think there would be a war, frankly. I think that Saddam would not be a crucial player in the world.