Never to be accused of being an intellectual elite, James Taranto, web hound for the Wall Street Journal, criticizes Jim Jeffords for suggesting GW went to war with Iraq for 1) the oil and 2) bolstering his re-election chances. (How dare Jeffords state something so outlandish! How un-American!).

Taranto writes,

So let's see if we have this straight: According to Jeffords, the president went to war in Iraq to "control the country's oil supply" and to help his own re-election chances. This doesn't quite jibe with what happened, which is that Bush was re-elected even though Iraq's oil industry, which America doesn't control at any rate, is operating at far from full capacity and U.S. gasoline prices are quite high compared with recent years.

Hey, he brings up a good point. Recall that several folks in the administration stated the war would primarily be funded by Iraqi oil (a free invasion!) -- what happened? Last time I looked this invasion / occupation was anything but free ($300+ bil. cost to American taxpayers, and counting).

Thanks to both Jims for prompting us to revisit this key question.