Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has some harsh words for the Republican party in his new autobiography, words that I hope the Republicans listen to. Although I haven't read the book yet, apparently the former Ayn Rand disciple states quite clearly that the Republicans deserved to lose the majority in Congress in 2006 because it had abandoned its fiscal conservative roots. No argument here -- that's my position as well. But another tale from the book has garnered attention over the past few days -- Greenspan's claim that the Iraq war was, in fact, all over oil.

The media reports of Greenspan's statements make it sound as if behind closed doors, oil was the reason for the Iraq War, instead of one of many. In fact, as the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq states, there were many reasons for the Iraq War, not just WMDs. Primary among them was that "Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." Take away Middle East oil and the world's economy grinds to a halt. Like it or not, unless nuclear powered cars are just a few years away, maintaining safe and affordable oil supplies from the Middle East is in our country's national security interest -- and will be, for decades to come.

Today there's an article in the Washington Post, Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security, which seeks to clarifies the claims about oil that Greenspan made in his book. He explains his statement by saying that oil, in fact, wasn't the reason behind the war. Ex-Chairman Greenspan then goes on to say that if it was a reason for the war, it was because it was he who lobbied the administration on it:

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

Pretty interesting stuff. I wonder how Andrea Mitchell feels about this?

For almost one year, I have been contributing to "The Stump" as a blogger. Throughout that time, I worked hard to try to see things impartially. I clearly failed. After one year of analyzing and dissecting the news, I cannot understand how people could have bought into President Bush's policies and especially, his decision to attack Iraq.

Sure, Saddam Hussein was a horrible guy but there are plenty more like him in the world. Some are allies. The surprise is that good honest people who care about America, really believe that we should have preemptively attacked Iraq. To me, the evidence was clear, Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. However, the Bush spin machine convinced the majority of Americans that it did.

A number of Republicans within the administration spoke out against the war. They were ridiculed and described as unpatriotic. Now, Alan Greenspan has spoken. He is a lifetime Republican. He believes that the war was for oil. He believes that the party that was suppose to balance the budget and bring fiscal sanity to Washington, spent money excessively to win elections. And who does he think did a great job as president? None other than Bill Clinton.

Wow. Alan Greenspan's memoir is being previewed and George W. does not come out well. Remember, Greenspan is a life long Republican and a revered voice in financial circles. He was optimistic when his friends were elected.

When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."

Here's what he's saying now about the Bush administration:

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large, anticipated federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office." So Bush's goals "were no longer entirely appropriate. He continued to pursue his presidential campaign promises nonetheless."

Smack down and he's only getting warmed up. Tell us how you really feel Alan.

By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness, Washington was "harboring a dysfunctional government. ... Governance has become dangerously dysfunctional."

This from Alan Greenspan, never considered a radical. He worked with whoever was in office. He apparently appreciated Bill Clinton's ability to digest facts and face economic reality but pretty much says President Bush is the worst president ever. Now, I'm no Greenspan fan myself but we have found something to agree on here. The national debt has escalated faster than Republicans can send more brigades to the endless war. History will not be kind to this reckless cowboy and Greenspan is probably just the start. Worst President Ever, not the heroic cardboard cutout the Pretender sports.