The subtitle of the article is:

"During Howard’s tenure he has gone to war by 'mistake', overseen a shambles in the Solomons, grovelled to Jakarta, slavishly followed Bush and much more."

How's this for slavishly following Bush. Kids being indoctrinated at 'Jesus Camp' in the US.. last part of the video shows one Church leader gloating how the evangelical movement in the US has determined the outcome of elections:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PUQATCcQ0A&mode=related&search=

Come on Plantagenet,

Alan Greenspan was the head of the FED Reserve. An independent body. He was first nominated by Regan, someone he was much closer to in terms of economic outlook.

Greenspan had no role in formulating the plan to invade Iraq. He is an ECONOMIST. He is also a paid public speaker these days. I wonder if this will bump up his appearance fees?

His quote is an incredible swipe at the Bush white house. Especially considering he didn’t bother to provide any evidence of this assertion. Maybe if he had the courage to name some names or conversations, or produce a memo, I would look more favorably on his claims. As it stands he is asking us to rely on his opinion. And that is what he calls it ‘ his opinion’

I have never denied oil played an important role in the decision to go to war in Iraq. The Middle East’s strategic importance stems from the preponderance of oil in that area.

Even were I to accept the proposition that we went to war for oil, I don’t see any real evidence that this is why we are still there. Petraues has said that if there is no concrete political settlement within six months he would recommend withdrawal. That recommendation would almost certainly lead the US to begin immediate troop withdrawals.
America is beginning to make solid gains in reducing the level of violence in the country. Is now the time to abandon the Iraqis to total civil war?

We are fighting AL QAEDA in Iraq and we are winning, at least in that portion of the conflict. Without doubt leaving Iraq without fulfilling the goal of a central gov’t able to protect itself, gives a massive boost to Al Qaeda everywhere. This will undoubtedly mean we will have to fight them somewhere else OR stand by and watch them take-over most of the Middle East.

I don’t support Bush and I am glad he is not allowed a third term. Maybe John McCain can provide the solutions we need.

"We are fighting AL QAEDA in Iraq and we are winning, at least in that portion of the conflict..." (Quote:Paul L)

We are? Should we send them a postcard and tell them we are winning?

Ginx

No need for postcards. Just send a comparison of the Wests news highlights from before the surge and now.

The terrorist sympathic and anti-Bush media played up the car-bombings and troops deaths for months on end. Recall the hundreds killed on a daily basis and our stupid media highlighted them with the obvious intent to show Bush's failure and the US losing.

Well just look at the media today. It highlights any carbombing or action it can...and they are thankfully infrequent. Now if there were as many deaths and terror actions as six months ago, or even half as many, you could bet your bottom dollar the fawning and stupid buggars, in the media, would be in hysterics and wetting thenselves like a bunch of over-excited schoolgirls, in their rush to show the surge, Bush and the US is failing.

Get real, the Yanks are getting on top and the dopey bloody Iraqi politicians will soon realise the US won't go and will assist them if they show some guts and get on with what their people voted them to do.

Hi Paul

I'm glad that you are becoming more openminded on the subject of oil.

General Petraues is paid to talk about miltary issues. He is not permitted to talk about oil.

Bush and his Republicans are politicians. It would be diplomatic and electoral suicide to talk of oil.

You can’t tell American parents that their sons are still dying because America values “energy security” like everyone else. You can't also tell them that the US needs to remain in Iraq to extract more oil while fending off Russian and Chinese energy competitors....(a hint ;).

Energy Security was a respectable concept before President Bush recognised the political sensitivity of his past “OPEC” associations before encouraging “Austrian” troops to join the Coalition of the Willing. http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/08/2027414.htm?section=australia

Returning to Mr Greenspan’s admissions, he can’t be dismissed as a non-specialist observer outside of the defacto Cheney Cabinet. Rather Mr Greenspan was a powerful representative of an interest group just prior to the Iraq invasion that flagged the importance of eliminating Saddam because Saddam threatened oil supplies.

Pray have a gander at the following (authoritative) WashPost article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html?nav=hcmodule

Juicy bits include:

His [Greenspan’s] main support for Hussein's ouster, though, was economically motivated. "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands," Greenspan said, "our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.

Same article "a top-secret National Security Presidential Directive, titled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy" and signed by Bush in August 2002 -- seven months before the invasion -- listed as one of many objectives "to minimize disruption in international oil markets."

Pete

Gary Brown holds that Howard made a “mistake” which is defined as being an error in judgment or opinion, whereas I hold it was not a mistake at all but criminal conduct.
I happen to have published on my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH at 11.44PM a copy of a e-mail forwarded to Kevin rudd and other parliamentarians headed as follows; “Kevin07 versus DEAD DUCK HOWARD, two faced Turnbull & why not voting”.

It sets out some background details and that the Federal government was well aware that I pursued to prevent the unconstitutional armed and murderous invasion by Australian troops into Iraq but time and again the High Court of Australia, even on the day of the armed invasion commencing to hear and determine my Section 75(v) of the Constitution for writs of mandamus/prohibition.
Also, that the County Court of Victoria on 19-7-2006 upheld my appeals including that the 10 November 2001 and the 9 October 2004 purported federal elections were unconstitutional and so not a single candidate was validly elected. Not even John Howard!

I do not therefore accept there was a “mistake” as John Howard had no prerogative power in the first place to authorise the armed invasion! To me it is no less then criminal conduct!