I agree that "Iraq was invaded for its oil" has no compelling evidence (although they certainly were not above using that as a nice plus once in the place), but

I agree that "Iraq was invaded for its oil" has no compelling evidence (although they certainly were not above using that as a nice plus once in the place), but God are the two sources you provided bad. scottmanning.com: it does not matter how much "Iraqi oil" gets into the US, oil is oil not fine wine. What matters is that the oil fields are managed by US-aligned companies, and a lot of them are. Foreign Policy: ouch, that is like a motherlode of bad faith put into article form to justify the invasion, so basically because they found (after the facts) some documents relating wishful thinking about future coordination with Al-Qaeda, that justifies the patently off-based and oversold WDM claims, and makes all the sick 9/11 dog whistles "not lies"? Wow.