I'm not sure how much of a "correction" it really is, however.
For instance, in the video (about a minute in) Greenspan says some rather intruiging things. Matt Lauer first states that "liberal bloggers" are going nuts over one sentence in the 500 page book and says that those bloggers are saying it's proof that the administration lied. He then asks the former head of the FED of that was fair:
Greenspan: Utterly unfair. I was expressing my view. Saddam Hussein was obviously seeking to get a chokehold on the Straits of Hormuz where about 18 billion barrels a day flow from the Middle East to the Industrial world. Had he been able to get a hold of a nuclear weapon and indeed move through Kuwait and into Saudi Arabia and indeed control the Straits of Hormuz, it would have caused chaos in the international economy.Lauer then asked if it was just a semantic question, pointing out that "the administration went to war saying it was all about Weapons of Mass Destruction"
Greenspan: I believe that they believe that. I'm not saying that they believed it was about oil. I'm saying it is about oil and that I believe it was necessary to get Saddam out of there.It was all for stability of the region - a region full of oil. See? Not much of a correction.
Something, however, doesn't fit with his assessment about Saddam Hussein seeking control of the Straits of Hormuz. Reed Hundt over at TPMCafe pointed it out. First, take a look at a map. It's a little small, but I think it works. See that box in the lower right-hand corner? That's the Straits of Hormuz. See the little teeny tiny grey area in the upper left? Thats where Iraq begins.
Here's what Hundt had to say about Greenspan's geography:
So Iraq has no port or border on the Strait. Saddam had no naval capability of consequence after the first Gulf War. He had no air force. On the ground, he would have had to fight his way through a legion of enemies to approach the Strait from either side, and plainly would have been crushed. The U.S. Navy is invincible in those waters.
Tell me again how Saddam, hamstrung from the first Gulf War and a decade or so of sanctions would have been able to do it? March through Iran? March through Saudi Arabia?
Wait, wait - I know. He was going to give one of his nuclear weapons to Al-Qaeda and THEY were going to destroy the shipping lanes at the Strait of Hormuz.
Except we all know (and have known for a long time) that there were no nuclear weapons, no WMD, no ties to al-Qaeda.
And so it goes.