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."

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.

According to the AP, it would appear that President Bush may have settled on his choice for Attorney General and it is possibly (nothing is official yet) Michael Mukasey. Bush's previous top choice was the former solicitor general Theodore Olsen, the man who had become famous for successfully representing Bush before the Supreme Court in 2000 to settle the contesting of the presidency. Olsen's name, however, was pulled off the table after Democrats in the Senate threatened to block the nomination.

Mukasey would replace Alberto Gonzales, an Attorney General whose tenure was not exactly a dynamic one. In fact, many grass roots conservatives were happy to see him go as they generally considered him a fairly weak Attorney General without a clear agenda.

Mukasey is a moderate and would probably be more acceptable to the Senate, although there is some grumblings in the conservative base about his possible selection. Generally, the conservative base is lukewarm about moderates in positions of power, but there needs to be a bowing to reality on this issue. Without the votes to successfully confirm a candidate, the candidate will not be confirmed. This process of Senate confirmation was devised by the founding fathers as a means to limit executive powers and that is the way the system works.

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."

"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."

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

"We've got a role, the government has got a role to play -- but it is limited."

These were the words of President Bush when he issued a public statement regarding potential bailouts to those who are suffering from a mortgage foreclosures. In short, the president is offering to help, but he will not go so far as to provide a bailout.

There are two sides to the coin of the mortgage foreclosure controversy: those who borrowed far beyond their means and are now buried under debt and those who were victims of predatory lending that goaded them into signing loans they could not afford. Regardless of how the borrowers found themselves in the position they are in the fact remains the situation has reached critical mass and borrowers are looking for the government to help.

Bush, along with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, have made a pledge to homeowners they will provide the help that has been asked for. According to the Washington Times, the help may come in the form expanding "Federal Housing Administration insurance for subprime borrowers, which would assist about 80,000 mostly low-income and minority households facing foreclosure." Whether or not this will prove to be enough remains to be seen, but it is a step in the right direction.

I was going to write about the NIE report that says Iraq is getting far worse not far better, or the upcoming GAO report which says the Iraqis have met 3 out of 18 benchmarks. But then I saw that Karl Rove is still planting the suggestion that his boss buddy is the equivalent of Harry Truman and that it's just the fault of the media for not seeing it.

Let's get this straight. The guy whose desk has never seen a buck even drift by is being compared to Truman? No one in this administration can say the words "I messed up," "I take responsibility." If Bush & Cheney wanted to take responsibility for the disasters they have created they would resign in a heartbeat. Rove calls Bush a man of moral clarity. I guess that means invading countries on trumped up charges is clear. Continuing to make the same mistakes year after year is clear. Spying on Americans for exercising Constitutional rights is clear. Torture is clear. Encouraging obscene profit making by HMO's and other corporate elite is fine and dandy while the middle class gets killed is clear. No-bid contracts are clear. Cutting a birthday cake and playing air guitar while a city drowns is clear. Cutting down forests while calling it a Clear Air program is clear. I could go on and on but Truman wouldn't.

The amount of whitewash it would take to remove the stain of the Bush Administration doesn't exist. History (if we get that far) will not treat this band of thugs, liars and crooks well. This is a kakistocracy beyond redemption. In a week the compliant media will start beating the war drum with Iran but I hope enough fearful Americans will not buy the abused car from these bums yet again (it would be the last car). We already know the Petraeus report will betray the truth once again. Everything is not fine and throwing more American and Iraqi lives away will not fix it. We blew it and going in and out of Baghdad with troops fixes absolutely nothing. George resembles Harry? Not even close.

Wednesday marked the two-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. The storm devastated the city of New Orleans, along with many other places on the Gulf Coast. John Edwards used New Orleans to launch his 2008 presidential campaign, while fellow Democratic hopefuls Sen. Chris Dodd and Gov. Bill Richardson criticized the Bush administration's response to Katrina during the South Carolina debate. President Bush spoke in New Orleans on Wednesday and sounded encouraging, but the situation seems anything but. Much of the city is still devastated, and tax breaks tied to Katrina are helping investors develop luxury football condos near the University of Alabama. Bob and Susannah discuss Katrina in the latest "Running Gags"!

Merci to my muse for the idea...

The Justice Department's inspector general indicated yesterday that he is investigating whether departing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales gave false or misleading testimony to Congress, including whether he lied under oath about warrantless surveillance and the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The disclosure by inspector General Glenn A. Fine in a letter to Congress signals an expansion of the department's internal investigations into Gonzales's troubled tenure, probes that were not previously known to be focusssed so sharply on the attorney general and his testimony.

One of the things some bloggers do is review both the traditional media and the new media (mostly online). One thing I've noticed is the disconnect between TV's nightly news and the new media. By the time one watches the news at night what little there seems dated and offers little depth or analysis. There are warning signs of a possible bombing or war with Iran and yet there's barely a murmur from the traditional media. I certainly would prefer to be wrong but it's not just me. It's not a left or right issue.

There are foreign policy experts

Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.

On a recent trip to Australia, President Bush has acknowledged the international community's concern regarding China's recent massive military build up. Domestically, there has been a number of concerns in America regarding Chinese imports that seemingly ignore all manner of safety standards that have subjected the public to all sorts of health risks.

As noted in the AP, Bush has stated that he would be severely concerned about the military build up if China ever turned into a hostile power, but at this point there are good relations that exist between his administration and China. This was seemingly a reassurance to the public that China currently poses no threat. (Note: there is a massive U.S. Air Force and Naval presence in Asia that is there in part for the purpose of repelling a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, but Bush did not acknowledge this during his public address)

Public sentiment in America towards China is the worst it has been in decades mainly due to the harm that has befallen both humans and pets as a result of inferior products from China as well as a swelling anger about the loss of America jobs to China. The military build up has raised suspicions as well and China's implied threats about harming the U.S. economy has not endeared to the U.S. public. Only time will tell how all this plays out.

A recent Zogby poll has indicated that the public is once again slowly becoming more supportive of the war effort in Iraq. The poll reflected a 54% majority feel the surge is working. This is clear indication that public sentiment is changing as the security condition in Iraq continues to improvement. However, a recent GAO (Government Accountability Office) report indicates that congressionally mandated benchmarks on "political and military progress" are not being met.

According to the Washington Post, the forthcoming report indicates that while security has improved and attacks on military forces have been reduced (more than like this is the result of massive casualties inflicted on terrorists and insurgents), violence against civilians has remained constant and the overall ability to improve on the part of Iraqi security forces has been non-existent.

Will this undermine the Bush administration's attempt to boost public support for the war effort? It's hard to say. Ultimately, the greatest chance for swaying public opinion to a more supportive role rests almost exclusively upon General Petraeus' forthcoming September report. If Petraeus can put a human face on the sentiment that progress is being made and the war is winnable, he may be able to sway a decent amount of opinions barring no major catastrophes occur between now and then.

It's been clear since his first term that President Bush has a soft spot for Mexico. It became a serious issue during the debate on the "shamnesty" bill and his elitist attitude when he hit the blogosphere/talk radio brick wall that derailed it.

Now he's reached his nadir with his plan to allow Mexican trucks to cross the border and deliver anywhere in the United States beginning Saturday:

Teamsters leaders said they planned to seek an emergency injunction Wednesday from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

..."What a slap in the face to American workers, opening the highways to dangerous trucks on Labor Day weekend, one of the busiest driving weekends of the year," said Teamsters President Jim Hoffa.

..."Before providing unconditional access throughout the country to tens of thousands of big rigs we know little to nothing about, we must insure they meet safety and environmental standards," Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said.

I actually agree with the Teamsters and the Sierra Club (an uncomfortable feeling to be sure). As one who lived in San Diego County for nearly ten years, you should see some of the vehicles that cross the border.

Another issue is that this truly is taking jobs from American workers and giving them to Mexicans. The status quo works just fine; the Mexicans haul the goods to the border, American drivers take over from there. It's worked for nearly a 25-years so why change? I'm not a big union supporter even though I am forced to work with them, but Hoffa has a point.

"While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that the "capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."

"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised.

In 2004, President Bush carried around a security blanket, much like Linus in the Peanuts cartoons. In Bush's case, of course, I'm talking about the "security blanket" of the Justice Department (run by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft) and the Department of Homeland Security (run by then-Secretary Tom Ridge). All those Red, or Orange, or Chartreuse Alerts helped convince many Americans of how insecure our nation was in the wake of 9/11, and how much they needed Bush and his buddies to keep us safe.

Now the Democrats are taking away Bush's blanket. On Monday, Ashcroft's successor, Alberto Gonzales, resigned as attorney general. The Congress and the country are not so willing to go along with the president's policy anymore, and Gonzales' resignation shows this.

But can Democrats take a larger message from this? Can the 2008 hopefuls charge that the Bush Administration got too security-crazed and that we can abandon the wiretapping, the USA PATRIOT Act, Gitmo? A campaign ad for Sen. Barack Obama portrayed Obama's rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, as hoping for a 1984-style state ... but will anyone call out the Bush administration for its 1984 tendencies, and say that they will never do the same?

Last week there were some initial reports of literally tons of weapons gone missing in Iraq. We've already had reports of missing billions from contractors, the million dollar postage fee for two washers (yes, two washers) and the no-bid contracts leading the sorry list of corruption and Republican cronyism. But losing tens of thousands of weapons, what the heck? Who was in charge?

Several federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other materiel to Iraqi and American forces, according to American officials. The officials said it amounted to the largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here.

Turns out none other than Gen. David Petraeus was in charge.

The inquiry has already led to several indictments of Americans, with more expected, the officials said. One of the investigations involves a senior American officer who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005, American officials said Monday. There is no indication that investigators have uncovered any wrongdoing by General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, who through a spokesman declined comment on any legal proceedings.

But now, American officials said, part of the criminal investigation is focused on Lt. Col. Levonda Joey Selph, who reported directly to General Petraeus and worked closely with him in setting up the logistics operation for what were then the fledgling Iraqi security forces.