Blood for Oil? Come on Brad, I thought I could expect more than Michael Moore type conspiracy theories.

Earlier this year, Kerry and the rest of the Kool Aid drinkers were saying that Bush and the Saudis were trying to lower prices before the election.

Now, I presume its changed so that all of Bush's former "oil buddies" can line their pockets with the death of our troops. I can throw in Halliburton too if that makes it sound any more realistic.

Geez, Troll, you're the one who said "Blood for Oil", not me. I'm just pointing out two interesting points that others made.

That said, however, Bush's own (current) rationale for invading Iraq was Saddam's corruption of the Food for Oil program. So apparently, you'll have to take up your difference with your "President". (who, btw, blacked out the names of all the AMERICAN businessmen and OIL companies participating in the Food for Oil program in the Deullfer Report!)

Now all kidding aside however, Troll, if you don't understand how Oil is at the root of all of this, you're living in a Kool-Aid drinkers world, my friend. And you're smart enough to get out of there quick! Compare the countries with *more* ties to WMD's than Saddam. We haven't invaded them. Compare the countries with *more* mass graves/murder than Saddam. We haven't invaded them.

Use some logic. Pay attention. And stop drinking the Kool-Aid, senor.

WHAT?!?!? AMERICAN companies "gaming the Oil for Food" program? NO!!!!!!!! Not our guys. American corporations have never and would never be involved in scandals with people like Saddam Hussein.

And we went to war for Freedom and Peace. That's why we invaded and occupied an oil rich nation. Freedom and Peace. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Yeah, sorry, Jaime. I guess we'll have to invade ourselves now?

I am disgusted by the blacking-out of the US companies and officials involved in the food-for-oil scandal. They deserve to be held to the same level of ridicule and loathing that the French and Russian violators are given.

But I would disagree with this war being about oil. Rather, I see it as a two-part deal. One, it's about settling old scores. There were many theo-cons who wanted to occupy in 90-91. Once W was in office, they had their chance to put that plan in effect. Second, this group doesn't believe in the promotion of democratic values, but the enforcement of democratic values. They see it as their mission to liberate these countries.

I almost wish it was about the oil.

Teddy, I agree with you. The "He tried to kill my Daddy" theme undercuts the entire Iraq operation. Oil was just icing on the cake.

Furthermore, I see this administration as trying to run from the label "Crusaders". Isn't this one of the oldest stories... the idea that Christians from a foreign land would come and try to take over the Holy sites of the Middle East? How many thousands of years later is this conflict still going on?

Teddy, I agree with you. The "He tried to kill my Daddy" theme undercuts the entire Iraq operation. Oil was just icing on the cake.

Furthermore, I see this administration as trying to run from the label "Crusaders". Isn't this one of the oldest stories... the idea that Christians from a foreign land would come and try to take over the Holy sites of the Middle East? How many thousands of years later is this conflict still going on?

Vance,

The interesting thing is that I don't think it's a "he tried to kill my daddy" as much as it's a "I want to one-up my daddy."

He and his father have an odd dynamic between them.

Interesting Teddy, you may be right there. Perhaps he should have read Shakespeare first, instead of invading Iraq.

I think all of your assessments are excellent. And probably correct.

But my original comment replied to Troll and his seemingly "stunned" reply that I would be one of those "No Blood for Oil" folks.

While your comments above are *also* right on the money, you'd have to have blinders on, or be a Rush fan, to be unable to acknowledge the economy of oil that runs through *all* of this.

It's now been made apparent (via Freedom of Inf. Act) that Iraqi Oil Fields were part of the discussion in Dick Cheney's SECRET Energy Policy Meetings. Way back in April 2001! The Bush/Cheney ties to the oil industry, is indisputable. And the reliance of the America economy (stupidly) on oil applies to *all* Administrations, Democrat or Republican. We've had to protect those interests for years, and we continue to do so with valuable blood and treasure, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge that *base* component of this conflict is living in a world of denial.

i am not so sure that all of this personal stuff should be discounted but i think the overwhelming concern among the neandercons has to do with the question of relative stability of the region. By this they mean no civil society that is not a subsidiary of the larger geopolitical-economy. The reference to Gulf I is important but the model remains the coup against the Iranians in the 50s. Remember, when Saddam became grand poobah, he was accepted by the US because he began a systematic killing of leftists (Communists, the hard left of the Ba'ath party that had not sold out, etc.). In fact, it is the graves of nationalists (largely Kurds) and leftists that we are finding today. i still think the use of these graves by our foreign policy apparatchiks is a vile cynicism. The problem with political discourse in this country is that in many cases we refuse to call attention to the reality of these deaths, their connection to our foreign policy and so forth. That's been a weakness of the left here. But looking at Iran is important. Before the toppling of their government they had an electable parialment that was on par with any Western Democracy. The insult came when they asserted that their natural resource was not a private matter but belonged to the people of Iran. This is not to say that Saddam was a flower child. Simply that he had outlived any usefulness. When our foreign policy folks decide to replace someone all of a sudden that guy becomes the worst thing since hitler and their victims, whose deaths were originally counted as necessary, all of a sudden count for something. The people, however, have not forgotten this history and resent the attempt to establish another Vichy on the Tigris.

i suggest anyone interested in a decent history of Iraq jettison read Hanna Batatu's "The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq" or you could check out Tariq Ali's latest critique of politics "Bush in Babylon: The Recolonization of Iraq" (a lot of Batatu's work is reflected in this). If you're not familiar with Ali, i would suggest a reading of some of his stuff. In fact his Clash of Fundamentalisms is a great introduction to the politics of resistance.