This just in: War is about oil
How do I know this “known fact” (backatcha, Redstate D***heads)?
Give me a second here, Rush, because I want to share something with you. I am deeply concerned about a country, the United States, leaving the Middle East. I am worried that rival forms of extremists will battle for power, obviously creating incredible damage if they do so; that they will topple modern governments, that they will be in a position to use oil as a tool to blackmail the West.
Of course, anyone remarking on this rather evident fact back say, in 2003, was chided:
By Thomas W. Lippman
The Washington Post. Friday, January 24, 2003
The failure of the Bush administration to articulate a compelling rationale for a potential war with Iraq is having a pernicious global side effect: It is fostering the belief that such a conflict would be a “war for oil” and therefore an exercise in imperialism, not an exercise in security.
This view is widely held in the Arab world, where commentators argue that the United States must be expecting instability in Saudi Arabia to compound the instability in Venezuela, and is therefore looking elsewhere for ensured oil supplies. It showed up in the signs and shouts of the antiwar demonstrators who came to Washington last weekend: “No blood for oil!” “We don’t want your oil war.”</i>
Uh huh. And by the way, what the hell is the “president” doing on a radio talk show with a man who belittles Parkinson’s sufferers, mothers who’ve lost children to war, or 9/11 widows?
Oh thats right. He’s trying to stay out of the Hague. I forgot. Self preservation is the only real factor in any of his actions.