Isn't it obvious at this point that Iraq is an energy policy. It goes along with getting more.

Exactly right. Imagine for an instant that Saddam remained in power, with $120/barrel Bush would have no choice but negotiates and make concessions in order for Iraq to increase production! no way!

Ok, so he's a rational "perpetuate the growth paradigm" kind of Dr. Evil-doer...

Come now... We could have repositioned Saddam as a good guy. It would have taken Rush and few pinheads to help, but they could have done it. Maybe Saddam could have pretended to water-board a few Qaeda guys for us or something.

We could have had the oil. The Iranians could have been thoroughly annoyed. The Israelis thoroughly pleased. We could have saved a mountain of bucks...

And GWB would have had the last laugh... since he would have out-Cheneyed Cheney by turning Saddam.

It would have been masterful realpolitik.

But no... we had to do it the hard way.

Maybe you should have been Secretary of State (or VP) 8 years ago and things would have worked out much better. That plan actually makes sense.

Of course, a lot of people who have made rather a lot of money out of the Iraq exercise wouldn't be so well off if it had been done that way, something I've often felt isn't a coincidence...

Rebrand Sadam? Like the Nazi, er, I mean, German Scientists who build our space program? Where's an Edward Bernaise when you need him?

Jon.

George Bush has a "B&B" energy policy:

Bomb Iraq to grab their oil ...

... and when that doesn't work ...

Beg the Saudis, stupid sword dance, etc...