Washington Post/ January 24, 2003
Thomas W. Lippman Editorial

4th PPG
Even a perfunctory acquaintance with the realities of the global oil market would indicate that the "oil war" theory does not stand up to analysis. As an imagined rationale it doesn't square with the facts; and in the unlikely event that it actually does factor into the administration's thinking, it is a specious argument that cannot justify sending American forces into combat.

Last PPG
As the U.S. military buildup around Iraq's perimeter accelerates, the Bush administration is obliged to make a persuasive case for war. It should also make clear what its motives are not.

Lippman makes a good case for his view. I'd like to hear other Mudcatters' views on it.

Question: If it's not oil Bush is so gung ho about going to war for, what is it? I don't believe for a moment that he's pursuing it in the interests of foreseeable national security- if it were he'd be going after NK. Vengefulness? Cowboy posturing? Just full of himself? 'Now, daddy, you'll be able to sleep nights'-ness?