Sunday, April 30, 2006

Can anyone explain what that sign is supposed to mean? It's an article of faith among these ignoramus lefties that the Iraq war must have something to do with oil. But what, exactly? Have these people failed to notice that we haven't exactly seized the Iraqi oilfields? And that, whatever the war's rationale was, it pretty obviously wasn't bringing down the price of gasoline?

[...]

UPDATE: Joe Malchow points out that Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams, has expressed puzzlement over the "no war for oil" theory:

I don’t understand the theory that we attacked Iraq for oil. Can one of you geniuses explain that to the rest of us?

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person. And I certainly think governments are capable of doing bad things. But I don’t understand the concept of attacking Iraq “because of oil.” What does that even mean?

Do you think the plan was to conquer Iraq and give the oil fields to Exxon?

Do you think the idea was to depose Sadam so the free Iraqis would boost oil production, thereby lowering costs at the pump?

Was the idea to bomb Iraq until they loved American oil companies and wanted to do business with them?

Seriously. Can anyone explain what the plan was?

There isn't any answer to that question. Which, of course, won't stop the lefties from muttering obsessively about "oooiiiillll."

...Laurence Lindsey – President Bush’s senior economic advisor at the time — argued in 2002 that the Iraq war would increase oil supplies and lower prices. From the Washington Times, 9/19/02:

As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.” But he quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.”

“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.