I’ve written here before about the connection between oil (and our consumption of it) and the war in Iraq, and how generally people stop listening when anyone suggests a relationship between the two. But will that be the reaction now that Bush has said oil is yet another reason for the war in Iraq?
President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country’s vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
The president, standing against a backdrop of the USS Ronald Reagan, the newest aircraft carrier in the Navy’s fleet, said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
…”If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ”They’d seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."
So, is it alright to make that connection now?
I guess nobody brought up the fact that had we gone after bin Laden instead of Hussein that option would never have presented itself.