AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,� he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

I think this Greenspan declaration is a catastrophe for the Republican Party.

In addition to that he said something more which is more devastating:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/16/bus...an.4-134747.php

Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir is harshly critical of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress for abandoning their party's principles on spending and deficits.

So my predictions about the destiny of the Republican Party are turning to become a reality.

Illegally invading Iraq was about two things: killing Daddy's nemesis and getting the oil.

Greenspan's statement poses many questions, including:
1. So, what else is new?
2. Given how greedy we tend to be, why are we surprised?
3. How come we never heard Greenspan speak of this when he was in power?
4. BTW, how much pension will Greenspand receive? How much of his pension will he contribute to help the cause of those his silence harmed?
You write,
Question: GW's economic policy? Was it HIS policy?

I agree!
O yeah!
If you believe this, I have the following for sale...cheap.

Invading another country for its oil would/could not have happened under the presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, or Lyndon Johnson. Hell, I don't think even Richard Nixon would have tried it. It needed the right combination of fanaticism and lunacy in Bush and his cohorts.

Rick comments, "It needed the right combination of fanaticism and lunacy in Bush and his cohorts."

ABOUT BUSH AND HIS COHORTS
The philosophy of fanatic, lunatic and corrupt learders goes like this: Create chaos, offer to finance it, and--using a corrupt money system--then make the small businesses and workers pay.

That's what it seems to boil down to. More on corruption:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091907J.shtml

This is what happens when in the "unitary executive" of Bushworld the foxes are assigned to watch the hen houses.

There is no need to despair. There is a way to out-fox the foxes.

It's called voting Democratic.

BTW, ANY CANADIAN READERS INTERESTED IN REAL DEMOCRACY?
========================================================
If so, check out http://www.freedomparty.on.ca
In the current provincial elections in Ontario--which, BTW, is larger than Texas, in area--I am a candidate for the FREEDOM Party, in the riding of Thornhill, just north of Toronto.

If I were a Canadian, I'd vote for you, Lindsay.

Thanks, Rick. Your vote is still worth a little more that $1.00 Canadian; but we are catching up, fast.

BTW, check this out. Maybe there is still hope for my American cousins. This look like a site that is just getting started. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here:
http://www.freedomparty.us/

That party seems very anti-progressive, with some similarities to the Libertarian party, with none of the advantages.

If it is anti-progressive It would not get my support. Maybe you should challenge them to become more open, like its Canadian cousin. Freedom is always progressive, IMO.

Quoting from the site:

Freedom Party's commitment to human dignity and freedom is reflected in the principle which guides the party's policies: "Every individual, in the peaceful pursuit of personal fulfillment, has an absolute right to his or her own life, liberty, and property."

That rhetoric sounds like the "don't tax me" Repuglicans. Here's another one:

"ending the disincentive to earn and moving toward a fee-for-service model of government revenue by replacing progressive rates of income taxation with a single rate for all Americans;"

That's exactly the Repuglican agenda (privatization of government services), except that they want zero tax for the upper class.

Okay. But keep in mind that "every individual" includes people of all classes, not just the rich.

I ask: Are you saying that "Repuglicans" do not want to pay ANY taxes?

Okay, we need to ask the FP, in the USA and Canada: Regarding local and federal taxes, what do you feel is a fair-tax policy?

BTW, Rick, what do feel is a fair-tax policy?

BTW 2, I find myself in agreement with Oliver Wendell Holmes, the great jurist and teacher, who said: "With my taxes I buy civilization."

Your two questions:

1. Yes. As Reagan said, "it's your money." The right wing does not believe in any taxes, except those paid by working people.

2. A fair tax policy would be taxation proportional to benefit received from living in a civilization. As the wealthy benefit enormously more than the poor, they should be taxed at much higher rates. The policy we used to have in the early 1960s was about right, progressive taxation up to 70% of income for the very wealthy.

Here's a quote from the founder of capitalism, Adam Smith:

“The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.�

For more on his enlightened philosophy, see http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/23/4046/

Rick, you say: "The right wing does not believe in any taxes, except those paid by working people."

Do you have evidence for such a statement? This is not true of any party in Canada, including the FP.

You quote Reagan as saying, "It's your money."

Of course it is "our money". All government money is our money, is it not? And it is there to be spent on socially useful programs.

The evidence for the statement is the actions of the party, such as Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and the dismantling of government infrastructure, environmental regulation, etc.

When Reagan said "it's your money" he meant that the government doesn't have any right to it, at all. That's the no taxes on the rich philosophy.

Economy Related
1. US Dollar exchange rate dramatically decreased all around the world.
2. All companies engaged in Net Marketing schemes all around the world, which are paying salaries to foreign employees in US dollars’ equivalent, suffer significantly.
3. There is significant drop in US credibility all around.
4. The word Democracy is discredited and the concepts of Democracy are discredited all around the world as well.

Iraq Related
The military operation in Iraq was excellently organized from military point of view (and I still think that it was the only way to get rid off from such a dangerous regime as Iraqi regime was; unfortunately Russia and China intentionally sabotaged creation of an international coalition over Iraq; besides that CIA, later on, fully discredited US Intelligence as a reliable source of information adding up strong arguments to Russian and Chinese position in UN).
But the US government
(i) failed to stop lootings after the main stage of the military operation,
(ii) failed to stop destruction of the critical infrastructure of the main Iraqi cities,
(iii) failed to preserve a considerable segment of Iraqi cultural heritage due to fires in various libraries and museums which were left unprotected after the invasion,
(iv) failed to protect museums presenting international value: they were robbed, some were destroyed having very dramatic impact on preservation of mankind’s historic heritage of Mesopotamia,
(v) failed to stop sectarian violence,
etc.

Other Aspects
The Republican Party is FULLY responsible for current situation. American people should disband that organization by not voting for them on the next elections in the Congress. A new Federalist party should emerge instead of the Republicans. Their image is damaged and that damaged image automatically is getting to assigned to the image of the United States.
A political party so aggressively inclined to approaches of Alexander Hamilton and rejecting the basic ideas of Thomas Jefferson cannot run such a country as the USA is. US was created for certain mission and those who created it ordained much to its present power and glory (and up to now stand on its side protecting it and supporting it), it was not created to serve narrow interests of a bunch of bustards from Texas having direct blood line with the Windsors, it was created for propagation of mankind on this planet. And if those aims in the policy will not be complied accordingly, nobody will support such a State from the Old World it was designed and created from.

Citizens of the United States should understand that SOMETHING IS WRONG IN THE AMERICAN KINGDOM.