Quote from riserburn:
I disagree. If this administration had publicly based any of it's original reasons for invading Iraq on the pretenses of securing oil, it would have resulted in a serious volley of criticism from all sides politically. Considering the climate of public opinion at the time, with 9/11 fresh on everyone's minds, any justifications short of terrorism and/or a threat of national security was out of the question. He would have lost enough GOP support to cost him reelection and he knew it.
While some Americans wouldn't oppose a war to secure oil, I have to disagree with you there as well. There would have been enough public opposition there as well to cost him reelection. Besides, we don't have to have it, and by weaning ourselves off it, we would indeed be effectively cutting off a major source of terrorist funding. Afterall, isn't that the latest spin from this administration? The curious thing to me is it didn't take a war to achieve this to begin with.
I don't think this administration was planning on "stealing" it. I believe they were operating under the pretenses that the Iraqi majority would be so "grateful" that they would simply install a US friendly regime and, once again, consider us good potential customers. Don't forget, under Saddam, Total Fina Elf and Lukoil would have gotten the Lion's share. Now W's major campaign contributors couldn't have that could they?
