>> Therefore, be it resolved: Given all these reasons, why *wouldn't* Bush invade Iraq?
>
> MG: US domestic politics weren't the only reason which made Iraq a target. There's abundant evidence that Bush officials and advisors who were instrumental in the Project for a New American Century had targetted Iraq for regime change well prior to 9/11.
Like this, for example:
"U.N. to let Iraq sell oil for euros, not dollars" http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/
Note the date: October 30, 2000.
>> Now, even if you're inclined to credit the foregoing account, it's still possible to stand on your hand and squint your eyes and rack your brains trying to find some way to fit it into some underlying narrative about "oil." Because oil has to figure in there somewhere, right? Believe me, I used to have this kind of mindset - I used to be quite Chomskyish. I would argue, however, that this is a mental reflex you really want to avoid. All it does is give you a headache without adding anything to your explanatory capability.
>
> MG: Henry Kissinger, like Greenspan, also reportedly thinks US Mideast policy is about oil, but you'll find a longer list of others at the bottom of the article who share your current "mindset" that it's just a made up fantasy:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-weissman/greenspan-kissinger-oil-d_b_64659.html
I don't know which is worse: those who leap to conspiracy theory first and only or, those who would cut off their noses to spite their faces rather than seriously consider theories they call conspiracy.
Not all conspiracy is theory.
Percy