The Arguments: I – It’s all about Oil.
Prelude: the left constantly shifts and changes their objections to dealing with Saddam. It is kind of like nailing jello to the wall. Let us dispell their arguments in logical and reasoned manner.
#1. It’s all about Oil
This is perhaps the most intellectually vapid of all arguments. If it was all about oil, then the most logical course of action would be to drop the sanctions. The President would send and envoy to Iraq and have a conversation: “Hey Saddam, tell ya what, why don’t you give some oil contracts to some of my buddies and I’ll put a motion to the UN to drop the sanctions”. It would be done faster than a democrat votes to raise taxes.
If it were all about oil then we would have taken over Kuwait and the oil fields in southern Iraq in 1991.
Then of course, as George Will points out, if it was all about oil, we should attack Canada. We get most of our imported oil from Canada, (1.) so hey, lets drum up some pretext like: their border is a sieve and they are allowing terrorists entry into the country” Then invade Canada.
If one is to accept the all about oil premise, then it is equally credible that Clinton bombed Iraq for oil, or that he bombed Sudan to distract from the Monica Lewinski scandal. Why not? If one is plausible then the other certainly is. But of course the opposition would never admit such a thing.
George Will puts forth that the "blood for oil delusion springs from paranoia.” But I disagree. It is an emotionally charged cry that is typical of the left, because logic and reason do not support their position. The left believes that emotionalism is their most effective weapon.
It is in these snippets of reality we start to see the real reason for the opposition, but that is another conversation.
1. abcnews.go.com |
